Opinion
February 16, 2000
Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.
PRESENT: PINE, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, BALIO AND LAWTON, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15), assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30). We conclude that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495) and that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). We reject defendant's contention that a sealed bag marked exhibit No. 36 was improperly received in evidence ( see, People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 408-409, rearg denied 51 N.Y.2d 770, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087). Contrary to the contention of defendant, that exhibit does not contain any excluded evidence. Nothing in that exhibit is inconsistent with the stipulation of the parties at trial or the ruling of the trial court. We conclude that defendant's other contentions with respect to that exhibit are unfounded. We further conclude that County Court properly denied defendant's objection on Batson grounds ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) to the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a black prospective juror. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, we conclude that the prosecutor provided a race-neutral explanation for excluding that juror ( see, People v. Boyd, 236 A.D.2d 833, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1089). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. The remaining contentions of defendant, including his contention that the court failed to rule on a Sandoval motion ( see, People v. Lopez, 212 A.D.2d 549, 550; see also, People v. Venero, 211 A.D.2d 566, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 785), are not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to address those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).