| People v Dehaarte |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06184 [65 AD3d 593] |
| August 11, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nicholas Dehaarte, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Howard McCallum of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered February 7, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (three counts),assault in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying a Batson challenge(see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) because the prosecutor's explanation forstriking three black potential jurors was pretextual. However, the defendant's challenge wasproperly denied because he failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong ofthe Batson analysis, that the facially race-neutral explanation given by the prosecutorwas a pretext for racial discrimination (see People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172 [1996]).
Furthermore, the defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient toestablish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins,11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People vEley, 31 AD3d 662 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the perpetrators beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Hall, JJ., concur.