PEOPLE v. SINGLETON (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1], [12]) and three counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [1], [2], [3]). We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court “for further proceedings as [were] necessary to satisfy the requirements of Batson” (People v. Singleton, 192 A.D.3d 1536, 1538, 143 N.Y.S.3d 483 [4th Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon remittal, the court heard arguments from defense counsel as to why the People's proffered race-neutral reason for striking the prospective juror at issue was pretextual, after which it determined that there had been no Batson violation. We affirm.

Contrary to defendant's contention in his supplemental brief, the court did not err in denying his Batson challenge. “At step one [of a Batson challenge], the movant must make a prima facie showing that the peremptory strike was used to discriminate; at step two, if that showing is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for striking the juror; and finally, at step three, the trial court must determine, based on the arguments presented by the parties, whether the proffered reason for the peremptory strike was pretextual and whether the movant has shown purposeful discrimination” (People v. Bridgeforth, 28 N.Y.3d 567, 571, 46 N.Y.S.3d 824, 69 N.E.3d 611 [2016]; see People v. Pescara, 162 A.D.3d 1772, 1772-1773, 79 N.Y.S.3d 827 [4th Dept. 2018]). “Step three of the Batson inquiry involves an evaluation of the prosecutor's credibility” (Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 [2008]), and a “trial court's determination whether a proffered race-neutral reason is pretextual is accorded great deference on appeal” (People v. Linder, 170 A.D.3d 1555, 1558, 95 N.Y.S.3d 681 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1071, 105 N.Y.S.3d 12, 129 N.E.3d 332 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 656, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 [2010], cert denied 563 U.S. 947, 131 S.Ct. 2117, 179 L.Ed.2d 911 [2011]; People v. Larkins, 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1441-1442, 8 N.Y.S.3d 755 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001, 38 N.Y.S.3d 110, 59 N.E.3d 1222 [2016]). On this record, we see no reason to disturb the court's determination that the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reason for challenging the prospective juror at issue was not pretextual.

We further conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel. Simple disagreement with strategies or tactics does not satisfy a defendant's burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19 [1994]). As long as a defense is based on a “reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance” (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 469 N.Y.S.2d 663, 457 N.E.2d 769 [1983]). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case should be “viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation,” and if they reveal “that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 [1981]). What constitutes effective assistance of counsel varies according to the unique circumstances of each case (see id. at 146, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Here, defendant received meaningful representation. Defendant was acquitted of the only violent felony offense charged in the indictment. Moreover, defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, obtained and conducted a suppression hearing, presented opening and closing arguments, raised appropriate objections throughout the trial, effectively cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, and presented a cogent defense in which defendant and others testified (see generally People v. Goncalves, 283 A.D.2d 1005, 1005, 725 N.Y.S.2d 776 [4th Dept. 2001], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 918, 732 N.Y.S.2d 635, 758 N.E.2d 661 [2001]).

The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.