People v. Falchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Falchetti

119 A.D.2d 690, 500 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55610

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

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 690 (People v. Falchetti) 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. Falchetti, 119 A.D.2d 690, 500 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), rendered March 8, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and attempted petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in striking the defendant’s testimony on direct examination and continuing the trial in his absence when he failed to reappear after a recess for his own cross-examination. Where a defendant "deliberately leaves the courtroom after his trial has begun”, he "forfeits his right to be present at trial regardless of whether he knows that the trial will continue in his absence”, and may no longer claim the protections afforded to those defendants who do not unambiguously waive their right to be present at trial (People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444). The defendant forfeited his right to be informed of exactly what would transpire in his absence. Furthermore, it was not erroneous to sentence the defendant in absentia, since "a defendant who is properly tried in absentia may during his continued absence also be sentenced in absentia” (People v Sanchez, supra, at p 444).

Finally, the sentence of 5 to 15 years on the burglary count was not excessive under the circumstances. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), rendered March 8, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and attempted petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in striking the defendant’s testimony on direct examination and continuing the trial in his absence when he failed to reappear after a recess for his own cross-examination. Where a defendant "deliberately leaves the courtroom after his trial has begun”, he "forfeits his right to be present at trial regardless of whether he knows that the trial will continue in his absence”, and may no longer claim the protections afforded to those defendants who do not unambiguously waive their right to be present at trial (People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444). The defendant forfeited his right to be informed of exactly what would transpire in his absence. Furthermore, it was not erroneous to sentence the defendant in absentia, since "a defendant who is properly tried in absentia may during his continued absence also be sentenced in absentia” (People v Sanchez, supra, at p 444).

Finally, the sentence of 5 to 15 years on the burglary count was not excessive under the circumstances. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 690, 500 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-falchetti-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack