People v. Gamble

• Decision Date: 16 March 2016
• Citation: 27 N.Y.S.3d 226,137 A.D.3d 1053
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Javon GAMBLE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

137 A.D.3d 1053

27 N.Y.S.3d 226

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Javon GAMBLE, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 16, 2016.

Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Ilisa T. Fleisher and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), rendered April 25, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the second degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (St. George, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested with three other individuals in connection with an armed robbery of a London Jewelers store on October 14, 2011. According to the evidence at trial, the defendant and his cohorts exited the store with 35 Rolex watches, retailing at $800,000, and 2 Breitling watches, and then entered a black Cadillac Escalade. The defendant and his cohorts led the police on a high-speed chase before abandoning their vehicle on the Long Island Expressway and fleeing on foot onto a private golf course, where they were apprehended shortly thereafter. One of the stolen watches was recovered on the defendant's person.

The defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress the physical evidence seized from him, as well as certain post-arrest statements he made to law enforcement officials. After a hearing, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the second degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, and possession of burglar's tools.

The defendant's application for relief under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, following the prosecutor's peremptory challenge to an African–American venireperson, was properly denied. In order to give the trial court a proper foundation to evaluate a claim under Batson, as well as to ensure an adequate record for appellate review, a party asserting the claim "should articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed" (People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709 ). Here, defense counsel's perfunctory statements in support of his application for Batson relief were insufficient to establish a prima facie case (id. at 266, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709 ; People v. Cousin, 272 A.D.2d 477, 707 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt of robbery in the first degree on a theory of accessorial liability. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt as to that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

The defendant contends that the hearing court did not have an adequate basis to direct that he and his codefendants remain shackled during the entire suppression hearing, and that this direction interfered with his ability to communicate with counsel. Assuming, without deciding, that the right to be free of restraints absent a finding of necessity (see People v. Best, 19 N.Y.3d 739, 955 N.Y.S.2d 860, 979 N.E.2d 1187 ) applies, in some fashion, to a pretrial hearing (compare People v. Goldston, 126 A.D.3d 1175, 5 N.Y.S.3d 600, and People v. Morgan, 178 Misc.2d 621, 682 N.Y.S.2d 516 [County Court, Fulton County], with People v. Ashline, 124 A.D.3d 1258, 3 N.Y.S.3d 469, and People v. Campbell, 106 A.D.3d 1507, 966 N.Y.S.2d 313 ; cf. Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 ), we discern no reversible error on the part of the hearing court. After explaining to counsel that the court had received information that these particular defendants posed a risk of escape, the court agreed to allow counsel to confer with their respective clients between the direct and cross-examination of each witness, in order...