PEOPLE v. COLLINS (2009)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, inter alia, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02[1] ).   Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the victim that defendant threatened her with a hacksaw and a steak knife and to reject the theory of the defense that those allegations were untrue and manufactured by the victim's father (see generally People v. Kelly, 34 A.D.3d 1341, 825 N.Y.S.2d 855, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 847, 830 N.Y.S.2d 706, 862 N.E.2d 798).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court did not follow the requisite three-step analysis when he raised a Batson challenge (see People v. Robinson, 1 A.D.3d 985, 768 N.Y.S.2d 50, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 633, 777 N.Y.S.2d 32, 808 N.E.2d 1291, 2 N.Y.3d 805, 781 N.Y.S.2d 304, 814 N.E.2d 476), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in determining that the prosecutor's explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge with respect to the prospective juror in question was race-neutral and not pretextual (see People v. Lawrence, 23 A.D.3d 1039, 803 N.Y.S.2d 460, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 835, 814 N.Y.S.2d 83, 847 N.E.2d 380).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: