People v. Comfort

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Comfort

171 A.D.2d 1027, 569 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 1027 (People v. Comfort) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Comfort, 171 A.D.2d 1027, 569 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant attended the trial of this indictment for five days; however, on the morning of the sixth day, defendant failed to appear. His attorney informed the court [1028]*1028that he had spoken with defendant late the previous night and defendant did not mention that he would not be in court the next morning. Defendant’s father, who was in the courtroom, had no knowledge of defendant’s whereabouts. The court adjourned the trial for several hours to afford counsel the opportunity to determine whether defendant had a reason for not being present. When the trial reconvened at 2:00 p.m., defense counsel indicated that his efforts to locate defendant had been futile.

The court properly proceeded with the trial in defendant’s absence. A defendant who voluntarily absents himself from the courtroom after trial has begun forfeits his right to be present regardless of whether he knew the trial would proceed in his absence. However, before the trial court may order the trial to proceed, it must inquire into the surrounding circumstances to determine that defendant’s absence is deliberate (see, People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899, mot to amend remittitur granted 76 NY2d 746; People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 444). The court discharged its duty here.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to lack merit. We decline to modify defendant’s legal sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant attended the trial of this indictment for five days; however, on the morning of the sixth day, defendant failed to appear. His attorney informed the court [1028]*1028that he had spoken with defendant late the previous night and defendant did not mention that he would not be in court the next morning. Defendant’s father, who was in the courtroom, had no knowledge of defendant’s whereabouts. The court adjourned the trial for several hours to afford counsel the opportunity to determine whether defendant had a reason for not being present. When the trial reconvened at 2:00 p.m., defense counsel indicated that his efforts to locate defendant had been futile.

The court properly proceeded with the trial in defendant’s absence. A defendant who voluntarily absents himself from the courtroom after trial has begun forfeits his right to be present regardless of whether he knew the trial would proceed in his absence. However, before the trial court may order the trial to proceed, it must inquire into the surrounding circumstances to determine that defendant’s absence is deliberate (see, People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899, mot to amend remittitur granted 76 NY2d 746; People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 444). The court discharged its duty here.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to lack merit. We decline to modify defendant’s legal sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 1027, 569 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-comfort-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack