SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
June 5, 2009
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
VINCENT COLLINS, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered February 7, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and tampering with a witness in the fourth degree.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, inter alia, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the victim that defendant threatened her with a hacksaw and a steak knife and to reject the theory of the defense that those allegations were untrue and manufactured by the victim's father (see generally People v Kelly, 34 AD3d 1341, lv denied 8 NY3d 847). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge (see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 985, lv denied 1 NY3d 633, 2 NY3d 805), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15  [a]). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in determining that the prosecutor's explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge with respect to the prospective juror in question was race-neutral and not pretextual (see People v Lawrence, 23 AD3d 1039, lv denied 6 NY3d 835). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.