Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Linley

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


March 3, 2009

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
v.
CLAUDE LINLEY, APPELLANT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), rendered June 14, 2007, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

(Ind. No. 400/06)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. The prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for using a peremptory challenge against a prospective black juror are supported by the record, and the defendant "failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating discrimination by showing that these reasons were pretextual" (People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877).

Additionally, the defendant's contention that the prosecutor made inappropriate remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object during the trial (see People v Robbins, 48 AD3d 711, 711). In any event, the comments complained of fall within "the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments" (People v Stewart, 51 AD3d 826, 827).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 9; People v Giuca, 58 AD3d 750) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831-832).

FISHER, J.P., COVELLO, ANGIOLILLO and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

20090303

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.