People v. Samms, 83 A.D.3d 1099

Defendant appeals a July 23, 2007 judgment in Kings County convicting him of assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree after a jury trial.
The court concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
Batson stage-three analysis is treated as a pure issue of fact; deferential to the trial court’s credibility finding on pretext for challenged jurors.
The trial court found the defense’s proffered race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike of a white juror not pretextual; likewise, the prosecutor’s reasons for striking black jurors were deemed non-pretextual.
Defense counsel’s performance, though not flawless, was found to satisfy Strickland’s standard for effective assistance.
The sentencing court was found not to have violated Penal Law § 70.25(2) by imposing consecutive sentences for separate acts arising from a single transaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Batson stage-three findings were properly supported	People argues trial court credibility supported its pretext finding	Defense contends pretextual reasons undermine the ruling	Affirmed; stage-three credibility findings affirmed
Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance	People contends counsel’s performance met Strickland standards	Defendant asserts ineffective assistance due to flaws	Not deprived of effective assistance
Whether consecutive sentences violated Penal Law § 70.25(2)	People contends consecutive sentences permissible due to distinct acts	Defendant asserts concurrent sentences should apply	Consecutive sentences affirmed; acts were separate and distinct

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (race-based jury challenges require neutral explanations; stage-three fact-finding)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (credibility determinations central to Batson analysis)
People v. Wells, 7 N.Y.3d 51 (2006) (stage-three Batson framework in New York)
People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625 (2010) (distinguishes pretext and non-pretext in Batson context)
People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350 (1990) (great deference to trial court credibility findings)
People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 978 (2010) (trial court’s credibility determinations reviewed deferentially)
People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (1998) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland analysis)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice required for reversal)
People v. McKnight, 16 N.Y.3d 43 (2010) (separate acts supporting consecutive sentences)
People v. Battles, 16 N.Y.3d 54 (2010) (consecutive sentencing considerations where acts are distinct)
People v. Marte, 12 N.Y.3d 583 (2009) (analysis of sentencing alignment with separate acts)
People v. Bryant, 39 A.D.3d 768 (2007) (consecutive sentencing in multi-count convictions)
People v. Russo, 243 A.D.2d 658 (1997) (comparative evaluation of juror responses in Batson context)