| People v Buggsward |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01843 [104 AD3d 865] |
| March 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lindel Buggsward, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion M. Tang of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Braslow, J.), rendered August 11, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree(two counts), robbery in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant and his codefendant, Bernard Brothers, were jointly tried for offensesarising from a home invasion. The defendant contends that the trial court erred indenying his challenge for cause to two prospective jurors, because those prospectivejurors had a state of mind that was likely to preclude them from rendering an impartialverdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial (see CPL 270.20 [1] [b]). Forthe reasons stated in our decision on the codefendant's appeal (see People v Brothers, 95AD3d 1227 [2012]), we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in denyinghis challenge for cause to the two prospective jurors. Accordingly, the judgment must bereversed and a new trial ordered.
As the issue is likely to arise in the new trial, we note that the defendant's contentionthat the trial court's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d371 [1974]) was an improvident exercise of discretion is without merit (see People v Andujar, 101AD3d 1039 [2012]; People v Robinson, 262 AD2d 505, 506 [1999];People v Smith, 248 AD2d 568, 569 [1998]).
We further note that the trial court erred in failing to set forth specific reasonssupporting its determination to sentence the defendant as a persistent felony offender, anomission that should not be repeated in the event of a conviction following thedefendant's new trial (seePeople v Bazemore, 52 AD3d 727 [2008]; People v Murdaugh, 38 AD3d 918 [2007]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remainingcontentions. Mastro, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.