Summary
finding that the trial court's Batson rulings were "supported by the record"
Summary of this case from Chu v. ArtusOpinion
November 30, 2000.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered September 14, 1998, convicting defendant David Rodriguez, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of from 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, same court and Justice, rendered September 9, 1998, convicting defendant Geoffrey Rodriguez, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts), conspiracy in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him to four consecutive terms of 25 years to life and a concurrent term of 8 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.
Donna Krone, for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, for defendant-appellant.
Donna Krone, for respondent.
Dominic J. Sichenzia, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.
As to both defendants, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence clearly established the active participation by defendant Geoffrey Rodriguez in the two murders of which he was convicted, the existence of a single conspiracy including multiple drug-selling operations (see, People v. Leisner, 73 N.Y.2d 140, 149-151;People v. De Los Angeles, 270 A.D.2d 196, 197), and the roles played by each defendant in the conspiracy.
According "great deference" (People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356,affd 500 U.S. 352) to the court's findings with respect to pretextuality, we conclude that the court's rulings on the applications made by the People and defendants pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79) are supported by the record.
The court's conspiracy charge, read as a whole, was sufficiently balanced and conveyed the proper standards concerning single and multiple conspiracies (see, People v. De Los Angeles, supra).
We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.
Defendants' remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.