| People v Lassiter |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07866 [44 AD3d 877] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LevyLassiter, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Heather A. Ryan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered May 6, 2003, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, reckless endangermentin the second degree, and passing a steady red light (two counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79[1986]) was properly denied, as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing ofdiscrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of jurorsunder Batson, a defendant must show that the exercise of peremptory challenges by theprosecution removes one or more members of a cognizable racial group from the venire and thatfacts and other relevant circumstances support a finding that the use of these peremptorychallenges excludes potential jurors because of their race (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d500, 507 [2002]). The mere fact that the prosecutor exercised 5 out of 10 peremptory challengesagainst white women was insufficient to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient toraise an inference of racial discrimination, and the defendant failed to recite facts orcircumstances sufficient to establish the requisite pattern of discrimination (see People vBrown, 97 NY2d at 507; People vFryar, 29 AD3d 919, 920 [2006]; People v Chowdhury, 22 AD3d 596 [2005]; People v Kennerly, 20 AD3d 491[2005]).[*2]
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was providedwith meaningful representation of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708[1998]; People v Georgiou, 38AD3d 155 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 844 [2007]). The defense counsel was vigorousin his representation of the defendant, pursuing the defense that although large-scale narcoticstransactions had taken place, the defendant was not a party to the transactions and was arrestedsolely because the defendant was familiar to certain law enforcement authorities. The defensecounsel also sought to establish that the confidential informant who assisted in the investigationof the defendant was not credible. "The defendant's disagreement with the strategies and tacticsemployed by the defense counsel does not amount to a deprivation of effective assistance ofcounsel" (People v Palacios, 295 AD2d 452, 452 [2002]; see People v Ramkissoon, 36 AD3d834, 835 [2007]), particularly where, as here, the defense counsel was faced withoverwhelming evidence against his client (see People v McVey, 289 AD2d 260 [2001];People v Sullivan, 153 AD2d 223, 227 [1990]).
The defendant's claim that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because defensecounsel was under investigation by law enforcement authorities during his representation of thedefendant is based on matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Hernandez, 40 AD3d777 [2007]; People v Edwards,28 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein andDillon, JJ., concur.