Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Aleek EPHRAIM, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), rendered April 26, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the first degree, gang assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup procedures employed by the police for the purpose of securing prompt and reliable identifications were not unduly suggestive (see People v. Bennett, 37 A.D.3d 483, 829 N.Y.S.2d 206; People v. Gilyard, 32 A.D.3d 1046, 821 N.Y.S.2d 461).
Moreover, the County Court properly determined that the reason proffered by the defense counsel for the peremptory challenge of the single juror at issue was pretextual (see People v. Miller, 266 A.D.2d 478, 698 N.Y.S.2d 881). Thus, the County Court correctly granted the prosecution's reverse-Batson objection (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69).
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly before this court to the extent it relies on matter dehors the record (see People v. Edwards, 28 A.D.3d 491, 811 N.Y.S.2d 586). To the extent that such claim is reviewable, the record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 22, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)