People v Jackson
2008 NY Slip Op 10351 [57 AD3d 1463]
December 31, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Jackson,Appellant.

[*1]The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Shirley Troutman, J.), rendered August 16,2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree (eightcounts) and robbery in the second degree (four counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of eightcounts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2], [4]) and four counts of robbery inthe second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [b]). We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is againstthe weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Thetestimony of the People's witnesses was not incredible as a matter of law (see People v Smith, 32 AD3d 1291,1292 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]), and we see no reason to disturb the jury'sresolution of credibility issues (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Defendant failed topreserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor's explanations for striking a prospective jurorin response to his Batson challenge were pretextual inasmuch as he failed to provide CountyCourt with any reason for his contention (see People v Santiago, 272 AD2d 418 [2000], lvdenied 95 NY2d 907 [2000]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention asa matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject the furthercontention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). We have considered defendant's remaining contention andconclude that it is lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto andGreen, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.