People v. Dones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dones

250 A.D.2d 381, 672 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5282

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

DecidedMay 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 381 (People v. Dones) 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. Dones, 250 A.D.2d 381, 672 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal mischief in the third degree, menacing in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a [382]*382second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 1½ to 3 years, 1 year and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record indicates that defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, by his signing a waiver form in open court, following the court’s thorough explanation of the significance of such a waiver. The court, which had presided over defendant’s Sandoval hearing and his trial under a different indictment, was not legally disqualified from conducting a nonjury trial despite having acquired information of guilt or innocence inadmissible before a fact finder. A Judge is presumed to have considered only the legally competent evidence adduced at the trial and to have excluded inadmissible evidence from his deliberations and verdict (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403; People v Rosa, 212 AD2d 376). For this reason, we conclude, based on the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, that trial counsel’s advice to defendant to waive a jury did not deprive him of meaningful representation. "Concur — Milohas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal mischief in the third degree, menacing in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a [382]*382second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 1½ to 3 years, 1 year and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record indicates that defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, by his signing a waiver form in open court, following the court’s thorough explanation of the significance of such a waiver. The court, which had presided over defendant’s Sandoval hearing and his trial under a different indictment, was not legally disqualified from conducting a nonjury trial despite having acquired information of guilt or innocence inadmissible before a fact finder. A Judge is presumed to have considered only the legally competent evidence adduced at the trial and to have excluded inadmissible evidence from his deliberations and verdict (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403; People v Rosa, 212 AD2d 376). For this reason, we conclude, based on the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, that trial counsel’s advice to defendant to waive a jury did not deprive him of meaningful representation. "Concur — Milohas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 381, 672 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dones-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack