People v. Fulton

202 A.D.2d 1042, 610 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3429
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

202 A.D.2d 1042 (People v. Fulton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Curtis v. Fischer
387 F. Supp. 2d 218 (W.D. New York, 2005)
People v. Curtis
286 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)