| People v Collins |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04560 [63 AD3d 1609] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v VincentCollins, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of counsel), forrespondent.
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 criminalpossession 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 witnessin the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, inter alia, of two countsof criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). Viewingthe evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The jury was entitled tocredit the testimony of the victim that defendant threatened her with a hacksaw and a steak knifeand to reject the theory of the defense that those allegations were untrue and manufactured by thevictim's father (see generally People vKelly, 34 AD3d 1341 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 847 [2007]). Defendant failedto preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court did not follow the requisitethree-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge (see People v Robinson, 1 AD3d985 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633, 2 NY3d 805 [2004]), and we decline to exerciseour power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (seeCPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in determiningthat the prosecutor's explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge with respect to theprospective juror in question was race-neutral and not pretextual (see People v Lawrence, 23 AD3d1039 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 835 [2006]). Finally, the sentence is not undulyharsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.