| "{\"id\": \"1114324\", \"name\": \"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathan Baxter, Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"People v. Baxter\", \"decision_date\": \"1993-02-05\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"1014\", \"last_page\": \"1015\", \"citations\": \"190 A.D.2d 1014\", \"volume\": \"190\", \"reporter\": \"Appellate Division Reports\", \"court\": \"New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division\", \"jurisdiction\": \"New York\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T19:34:08.475988+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan Baxter, Appellant.\", \"head_matter\": \"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan Baxter, Appellant.\", \"word_count\": \"145\", \"char_count\": \"906\", \"text\": \"\\u2014 Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: At trial, defense counsel informed the court that she had made a mistake in exercising her peremptory challenges when she excused juror number 13 instead of juror number 6. She requested the court to discharge juror number 6 even though that juror had been sworn. On appeal, defendant argues that, because of counsel's mistake, defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. That inadvertent error does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799).\\nWe have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro se brief and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. \\u2014 Rape, 1st Degree.) Present \\u2014 Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Boehm and Davis, JJ.\"}" |