Opinion
2013-04-18
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Loquan BRUZZLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered June 16, 2011, as amended June 27, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly granted the People's reverse-Batson application ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 [1986];People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235 [1990],cert. denied498 U.S. 824, 111 S.Ct. 77, 112 L.Ed.2d 50 [1990] ). The record supports the court's express and implied findings ( see People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 185, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542 [1996] ) that the race-neutral reasons provided by defense counsel for the peremptory challenges at issue were pretextual. Since these findings are based primarily on the court's assessment of counsel's credibility, they are entitled to great deference ( see Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 [2008];People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621 [1990],affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991] ). To the extent that defendant is challenging the adequacy of the court's findings or explanations of its reasoning, and alleging that the court did not follow the three-step Batson procedure, those claims are unpreserved ( see People v. Richardson, 100 N.Y.2d 847, 853, 767 N.Y.S.2d 384, 799 N.E.2d 607 [2003] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject his arguments on the merits, as the court followed proper Batson procedures ( see Payne, 88 N.Y.2d at 184, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542).