People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho

209 A.D.2d 166, 617 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10773

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic S. Berman, J., at hearing; Joan Sudolnik, J., at trial and sentence), rendered June 26, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of 2Vz to 5 years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence, unanimously affirmed.

A defendant’s right to be present at sidebar discussions [167] during jury voir dire, whether the subject concerns specific bias (People v Sloan, 79 NY2d 386) or general bias (People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247), is applied only prospectively from the date of the decision in Antommarchi—October 27, 1992 (People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113). Since the voir dire in this case preceded that date, defendant’s absence at the sidebar conferences cannot be a basis for reversing the judgment. Nor do we perceive an abuse of discretion in making the sentence consecutive to a previously imposed but as yet unserved sentence. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic S. Berman, J., at hearing; Joan Sudolnik, J., at trial and sentence), rendered June 26, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of 2Vz to 5 years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence, unanimously affirmed.

A defendant’s right to be present at sidebar discussions [167] during jury voir dire, whether the subject concerns specific bias (People v Sloan, 79 NY2d 386) or general bias (People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247), is applied only prospectively from the date of the decision in Antommarchi—October 27, 1992 (People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113). Since the voir dire in this case preceded that date, defendant’s absence at the sidebar conferences cannot be a basis for reversing the judgment. Nor do we perceive an abuse of discretion in making the sentence consecutive to a previously imposed but as yet unserved sentence. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

People v. Camacho, 209 A.D.2d 166, 617 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 166 (People v. Camacho) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related