| People v Mancha |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 04566 [162 AD3d 903] |
| June 20, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rudy Mancha, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and John C.Carroll of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (RaymondGuzman, J.), rendered May 15, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts),upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's Batsonchallenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]), as the defendant failed to make aprima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in the People's exercise of peremptorychallenges. The defendant merely contended that the prosecution peremptorily challenged theonly two Hispanic male jurors who were on the panel of prospective jurors for the fourth roundof jury selection and had previously challenged another Hispanic male juror in a prior round. Thedefendant did not offer a showing of facts and circumstances sufficient to raise an inference ofpurposeful discrimination (see People vHecker, 15 NY3d 625, 653-655 [2010]; People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263,267-268 [1993]; People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325 [1992]; People v Santos, 105 AD3d 1064,1065 [2013]; People v Redish, 262 AD2d 664, 665 [1999]).
The defendant's contention that the DNA evidence presented at trial violated his rights underthe Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause because the testifying analyst merely "function[ed]as a conduit for the conclusions of others" (People v John, 27 NY3d 294, 315 [2016]; see Crawford vWashington, 541 US 36, 53-54 [2004]; People v Austin, 30 NY3d 98 [2017]) is unpreserved for appellatereview, and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel iswithout merit. A review of the record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873 [2003]). The defendant has failed to"demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's allegedshortcomings" (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712 [internal quotation marks omitted];see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d174, 176 [2003]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.