Opinion
2014-12-31
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Naquan GLOVER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered April 11, 2012, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the People's reverse- Batson challenge ( see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69; People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235) and seated a white male juror who was born in Bosnia. Defense counsel's proffered reason for challenging this juror was a concern about the juror's proficiency in English. Since there was no basis in the record to suggest that this juror had any problems understanding or speaking the English language, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the proffered reason for challenging this juror was pretextual ( see People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 656–657, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248; People v. Carrington, 105 A.D.3d 970, 964 N.Y.S.2d 546; People v. Tsouristakis, 82 A.D.3d 612, 613, 920 N.Y.S.2d 28).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 669, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and SGROI, JJ., concur.