People v. Ramos

• Decision Date: 02 January 2015
• Citation: 124 A.D.3d 1286,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00049,999 N.Y.S.2d 295
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amilcar RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

?124 A.D.3d 1286
999 N.Y.S.2d 295
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00049

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Amilcar RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Jan. 2, 2015

Affirmed.

[999 N.Y.S.2d 296]

The Legal Aid Bureau Of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Amilcar Ramos, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY AND WHALEN, JJ. MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4] ) and two counts of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30[2], [4] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court did not follow the proper Batson procedures in denying his Batson challenge and that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's allegedly race-based peremptory challenges to three African–American prospective jurors and one Hispanic prospective juror. We reject defendant's contention with respect to the Batson procedures. Although the court initially denied the Batson challenge before defense counsel had an opportunity to argue that the prosecutor's stated reasons were pretextual, defense counsel nevertheless placed on the record why he believed the reasons were pretextual, whereupon the court again denied the motion. In any event, the court, by initially rejecting the challenge prematurely, can be said to have implicitly determined that the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reasons were not pretextual ( see People v. Carmack, 34 A.D.3d 1299, 1301, 827 N.Y.S.2d 383, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 879, 832 N.Y.S.2d 491, 864 N.E.2d 621). We likewise reject defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. In response to defense counsel's Batson challenge, the prosecutor stated that two of the African–American prospective jurors expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the police investigated crimes committed against them, while the third answered “yes and no” when asked whether he was satisfied with the police handling of a crime reported by his girlfriend. With respect to the Hispanic prospective juror, the prosecutor stated that he indicated that he was inclined to “speculate” rather than base his decision on the facts presented.

[999 N.Y.S.2d 297]

We note that the prosecutor also struck a Caucasian prospective juror who stated that a relative did not “get a fair shake” by the prosecution in a prior case, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the prosecutor's explanations for his peremptory challenges were not pretextual ( see People v. Farrare, 118 A.D.3d 1477, 1477–1478, 989 N.Y.S.2d 202, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1061, 994 N.Y.S.2d 320, 18 N.E.3d 1141).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367), we reject defendant's further contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Two of...