People v Anthony Davis

Annotate this Case
People v Davis 2004 NY Slip Op 01180 [4 AD3d 533] February 23, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, April 21, 2004

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Anthony Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered September 19, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]) premised on the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike a black prospective juror is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 111 [1995]; People v Hernandez, 266 AD2d 311 [1999]). In any event, the absence of a complete record of the voir dire precludes any finding that the defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination (see People v Hernandez, supra; People v Williams, 260 AD2d 651 [1999]; People v Campanella, 176 AD2d 813 [1991]; People v Morales, 126 AD2d 836 [1987]).

Further, the absence of a stenographic record does not, per se, require reversal of a defendant's conviction. Reversal is only required if the defendant is prejudiced by the absence of a stenographic record. Under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted as the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the absence of the minutes from a bench conference (see People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, 796 [1995]; People v Glass, 43 NY2d 283, 286 [1977]; People v Eddins, 247 AD2d 548 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.