Opinion
08-03-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Steaton ANDERSON, appellant.
Isaac D. Hurwitz, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Bernarda A. Villalona of counsel), for respondent.
Isaac D. Hurwitz, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Bernarda A. Villalona of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered August 15, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions regarding the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges are unpreserved for appellate review to the extent that the defendant did not specifically raise them before the Supreme Court when making applications for relief under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875, 876, 597 N.Y.S.2d 633, 613 N.E.2d 539 ; People v. Wallace, 128 A.D.3d 866, 868, 7 N.Y.S.3d 610 ; People v. Hunter, 16 A.D.3d 187, 188, 791 N.Y.S.2d 41 ; People v. Fuller, 302 A.D.2d 405, 753 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). In any event, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 655, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 ; People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 508, 743 N.Y.S.2d 374, 769 N.E.2d 1266 ; People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 267–268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709 ; People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 325, 582 N.Y.S.2d 950, 591 N.E.2d 1136 ; People v. Vidal, 212 A.D.2d 553, 554, 622 N.Y.S.2d 323 ; cf. People v. Jenkins, 75 N.Y.2d 550, 553, 555 N.Y.S.2d 10, 554 N.E.2d 47 ).
Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not prevent him from setting forth additional facts and relevant circumstances in support of his prima facie showing (cf. People v. Jerome, 34 A.D.3d 835, 836, 828 N.Y.S.2d 78 ; People v. Garcia, 217 A.D.2d 119, 122, 636 N.Y.S.2d 370 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.