Opinion
2015–04738 Ind.No. 8266/13
06-20-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rudy MANCHA, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and John C. Carroll of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and John C. Carroll of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Raymond Guzman, J.), rendered May 15, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ), as the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in the People's exercise of peremptory challenges. The defendant merely contended that the prosecution peremptorily challenged the only two Hispanic male jurors who were on the panel of prospective jurors for the fourth round of jury selection and had previously challenged another Hispanic male juror in a prior round. The defendant did not offer a showing of facts and circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of purposeful discrimination (see People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 653–655, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 ; 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. Santos, 105 A.D.3d 1064, 1065, 963 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; People v. Redish, 262 A.D.2d 664, 665, 693 N.Y.S.2d 191 ).
The defendant's contention that the DNA evidence presented at trial violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause because the testifying analyst merely "function[ed] as a conduit for the conclusions of others" ( People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294, 315, 33 N.Y.S.3d 88, 52 N.E.3d 1114 ; see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53–54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 ; People v. Austin, 30 N.Y.3d 98, 64 N.Y.S.3d 650, 86 N.E.3d 542 ) is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. A review of the record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ; People v. Charles, 309 A.D.2d 873, 766 N.Y.S.2d 42 ). The defendant has failed to "demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings" ( People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Taylor, 1 N.Y.3d 174, 176, 770 N.Y.S.2d 711, 802 N.E.2d 1109 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.