People v. Halls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Halls

85 A.D.3d 632, 925 N.Y.S.2d 818

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

DecidedJune 23, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 632 (People v. Halls) 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. Halls, 85 A.D.3d 632, 925 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered June 1, 2010, convicting defendant, upon [633]*633his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 21k years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly sentenced defendant in his absence. The record establishes that defendant, who was in the court pens, deliberately refused to be produced in the courtroom for his scheduled sentencing. Accordingly, defendant waived and/or forfeited his right to be present, regardless of whether he had been warned that sentencing would proceed in his absence (see People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1985]). In any event, the record indicates that defendant’s attorney had warned his client to that effect. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered June 1, 2010, convicting defendant, upon [633]*633his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 21k years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly sentenced defendant in his absence. The record establishes that defendant, who was in the court pens, deliberately refused to be produced in the courtroom for his scheduled sentencing. Accordingly, defendant waived and/or forfeited his right to be present, regardless of whether he had been warned that sentencing would proceed in his absence (see People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1985]). In any event, the record indicates that defendant’s attorney had warned his client to that effect. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 632, 925 N.Y.S.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-halls-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack