PEOPLE v. ORTIZ

The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation at trial (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). Since young persons do not constitute a cognizable group with regard to discrimination in jury selection (see Johnson v. McCaughtry, 92 F.3d 585, 590-595, cert denied 519 U.S. 1034, and cases cited therein), defendant could not have been deprived of effective assistance by his counsel's failure to make an application pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79) on age discrimination grounds.

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203; People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459). The court properly permitted a brief inquiry into the underlying facts of defendant's youthful offender adjudication, which involved criminal possession of a weapon, since defendant's conduct in that instance was relevant to his credibility.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.