PEOPLE v. SIMMONS (2019)

Defendant's claim that the court should have excused a juror for cause based on his allegedly disqualifying statements during voir dire, notwithstanding the absence of any challenge, is not only unpreserved but unreviewable.  By statute (CPL 270.20[2] ), an allegedly erroneous failure to excuse a prospective juror for cause is only cognizable when a defendant challenges the panelist for cause, the court denies the challenge, the defendant (who, as here, has peremptory challenges remaining) peremptorily challenges the same panelist, and the defendant exhausts all peremptories.  None of those events happened in this case.

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record, with particular reference to counsel's reasons for deeming the juror at issue a satisfactory juror for the defense (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ).  Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal.