People v. Givens

210 A.D.2d 937, 620 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13409
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Givens. Read the opinion of the Court — 181 A.D.2d 1031

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the Sandoval conference deprived defendant of his right to be present at all material stages of the proceedings against him (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662; see also, People v Cruz, 81 NY2d 738; People v Dincher, 201 AD2d 892, lv denied 83 NY2d 851). Because County Court’s in-ehambers Sandoval ruling was not wholly favorable to defendant (see, People v Michalek, 82 NY2d 906, 907; People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267), defendant’s presence at that conference would not have been "superfluous” (People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872, 874; see, People v Favor, supra; People v Taylor, 201 AD2d 905, lv denied 83 NY2d 877).

In view of our determination, we do not consider the remaining issues raiséd by defendant. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Givens, 210 A.D.2d 937, 620 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

210 A.D.2d 937 (People v. Givens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Odiat
631 N.E.2d 108 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Michalek
631 N.E.2d 114 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
People v. Favor
624 N.E.2d 631 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Dokes
595 N.E.2d 836 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Cruz
609 N.E.2d 120 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Dincher
201 A.D.2d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Taylor
201 A.D.2d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)