
    PEOPLE v HART (AFTER REMAND)
    Docket No. 86747.
    Submitted March 11, 1987, at Lansing.
    Decided March 4,1988.
    Ricardo Hart was convicted by a jury in the Washtenaw Circuit Court, Ross W. Campbell, J., of felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, the case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether defendant had made a prima facie showing that the prosecution intentionally excluded black veniremen in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, with the Court of Appeals retaining jurisdiction. 161 Mich App 630 (1987). The trial court subsequently ruled that defendant had failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    The record in this case sufficiently supported the trial court’s ruling that defendant had failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the standard set forth in Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; 106 S a 1712; 90 L Ed 2d 69 (1986).
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, William F. Delhey, Prosecuting Attorney, and Marilyn A. Eisenbraun, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Douglas R. Mulkoff, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: Sawyer, P.J., and McDonald and H. J. SZYMANSKI, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   AFTER REMAND

Per Curiam.

In our previous opinion in this case, reported at 161 Mich App 630; 411 NW2d 803 (1987), we remanded the case to the trial court, directing it to apply the standard of Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; 106 S Ct 1712; 90 L Ed 2d 69 (1986), to defendant’s equal protection claim regarding the alleged intentional exclusion of black veniremen by the prosecution.

On remand and following a hearing on the issue, the trial court ruled that defendant failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination as required by Batson, supra. We find sufficient record support for the trial court’s findings and, therefore, find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.  