People v. Fulton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fulton

202 A.D.2d 1042, 610 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3429

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1042 (People v. Fulton) 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. Fulton, 202 A.D.2d 1042, 610 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err by imposing sentence upon defendant after he was removed from the courtroom. Although a defendant has the right to be present and heard at sentencing (CPL 380.40, 380.50), he forfeits that right by engaging in "obstreperous conduct” (People v Stroman, 36 NY2d 939, 940; see also, People v Herrera, 160 AD2d 416, lv denied 76 NY2d 789). The conduct of defendant at sentencing was sufficiently "obstreperous” to effect a forfeiture of his right to be present.

The contention that defendant’s sentence is harsh and excessive is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Balio, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err by imposing sentence upon defendant after he was removed from the courtroom. Although a defendant has the right to be present and heard at sentencing (CPL 380.40, 380.50), he forfeits that right by engaging in "obstreperous conduct” (People v Stroman, 36 NY2d 939, 940; see also, People v Herrera, 160 AD2d 416, lv denied 76 NY2d 789). The conduct of defendant at sentencing was sufficiently "obstreperous” to effect a forfeiture of his right to be present.

The contention that defendant’s sentence is harsh and excessive is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Balio, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1042, 610 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fulton-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack