People v. Hinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hinton

6 A.D.3d 724, 775 N.Y.S.2d 173

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 724 (People v. Hinton) 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. Hinton, 6 A.D.3d 724, 775 N.Y.S.2d 173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered August 14, 2002, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that her waiver of the right to a jury trial was inadequate and ineffective is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Magnano, 77 NY2d 941 [1991], cert denied 502 US 864 [1991]; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986 [1980]; People v Brunson, 307 AD2d 323, 324 [2003]). In any event, her contention is without merit. After the defendant discussed the matter with counsel, she signed a waiver form and submitted it while the trial judge was still on the bench. In addition, the trial judge carefully questioned the defendant, on the record in open court, as to her knowledge and awareness of her right to a jury trial and the consequences of her waiver. The defendant also acknowledged, on the record in open court, that it was her signature on the waiver form (see People v Brunson, supra; People v Perez, 213 AD2d 351 [1995]; People v Ospina, 192 AD2d 680 [1993]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Cozier, 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, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered August 14, 2002, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that her waiver of the right to a jury trial was inadequate and ineffective is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Magnano, 77 NY2d 941 [1991], cert denied 502 US 864 [1991]; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986 [1980]; People v Brunson, 307 AD2d 323, 324 [2003]). In any event, her contention is without merit. After the defendant discussed the matter with counsel, she signed a waiver form and submitted it while the trial judge was still on the bench. In addition, the trial judge carefully questioned the defendant, on the record in open court, as to her knowledge and awareness of her right to a jury trial and the consequences of her waiver. The defendant also acknowledged, on the record in open court, that it was her signature on the waiver form (see People v Brunson, supra; People v Perez, 213 AD2d 351 [1995]; People v Ospina, 192 AD2d 680 [1993]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 724, 775 N.Y.S.2d 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hinton-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack