PEOPLE v. PETERSON

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the information the police had at the beginning of their encounter with him, combined with the information developed during the encounter (see People v. DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Clark, 237 A.D.2d 372; People v. Jimenez, 187 A.D.2d 610; People v. Grimsley, 156 A.D.2d 714; People v. Fulmore, 133 A.D.2d 169), provided reasonable suspicion to detain and transport the defendant to the station house to rapidly confirm or dispel their suspicions that he had committed a crime (see People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Brewer, 200 A.D.2d 579; People v. Foster, 173 A.D.2d 841; People v. Pinkney, 156 A.D.2d 182; People v. Lyng, 104 A.D.2d 699; cf. People v. Ralfopoulos, 274 A.D.2d 437). Moreover, the fact that the police used handcuffs in transporting the defendant to the station house did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest (see People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378; People v. Persaud, 244 A.D.2d 577; People v. Carney, 212 A.D.2d 721; People v. Alford, 186 A.D.2d 43). Once at the precinct, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for criminal possession of stolen property and subsequently to place him in a lineup.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the reason offered by the prosecutor for his exercise of a peremptory challenge was facially race-neutral (see Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360; People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 104). The burden shifted to the defendant to establish that the proffered reason was actually pretextual (see People v. Payne, supra at 181; People v. Allen, supra at 110; see also Purkett v. Elem, supra at 768; People v. West, 243 A.D.2d 590). However, since the defendant failed to articulate to the Supreme Court any reason why he believed that the prosecutor's explanations were pretextual, his present contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Santiago, 272 A.D.2d 418; People v. Seward, 249 A.D.2d 337; People v. West, supra).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Felix, 58 N.Y.2d 156; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, KRAUSMAN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.