People v. Draper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Draper

154 A.D.2d 882, 546 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12812

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 882 (People v. Draper) 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. Draper, 154 A.D.2d 882, 546 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court improperly tried him in absentia. A defendant has the fundamental constitutional right to be present at trial (see, US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 139-140). Although that right may be waived, such a waiver must be a knowing, voluntary and intelligent relinquishment of a known [883]*883right (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350, cert denied 423 US 999). There is no direct evidence that defendant was advised of the date of trial and knowingly relinquished his right to be present. The record only indicates that defense counsel had talked to defendant’s father, who advised him that he believed defendant’s brother had told defendant of the trial date. Since the record fails to establish that defendant was advised of the date of trial, it was error to try the defendant in absentia (see, People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941; People v Fowler, 83 AD2d 788; People v Burts, 64 AD2d 283).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J. — perjury, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court improperly tried him in absentia. A defendant has the fundamental constitutional right to be present at trial (see, US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 139-140). Although that right may be waived, such a waiver must be a knowing, voluntary and intelligent relinquishment of a known [883]*883right (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350, cert denied 423 US 999). There is no direct evidence that defendant was advised of the date of trial and knowingly relinquished his right to be present. The record only indicates that defense counsel had talked to defendant’s father, who advised him that he believed defendant’s brother had told defendant of the trial date. Since the record fails to establish that defendant was advised of the date of trial, it was error to try the defendant in absentia (see, People v Gaines, 144 AD2d 941; People v Fowler, 83 AD2d 788; People v Burts, 64 AD2d 283).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J. — perjury, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 882, 546 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-draper-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack