People v. Jensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jensen

89 A.D.2d 1020, 454 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18279

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 1020 (People v. Jensen) 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. Jensen, 89 A.D.2d 1020, 454 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered May 9,1980, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (three counts), and burglary in the first and second degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence in absentia. Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed and matter remitted to Criminal Term for a hearing and resentencing in accordance herewith. As the District Attorney candidly concedes, a hearing was required when defense counsel at sentencing asserted that defendant’s predicate felony conviction was obtained in derogation of his constitutional rights (see CPL 400.21, subds 5, 7, par [b]; People u Barrows, 65 AD2d 625; People v Fraser, 54 AD2d 965; cf. People v De Berry, 73 AD2d 652). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendant and find them to be without merit (see People v Guzman, 89 AD2d 14 and People v Wells, 89 AD2d 1020 with respect to defendant’s claim as to the Grand Jury). O’Connor, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered May 9,1980, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (three counts), and burglary in the first and second degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence in absentia. Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed and matter remitted to Criminal Term for a hearing and resentencing in accordance herewith. As the District Attorney candidly concedes, a hearing was required when defense counsel at sentencing asserted that defendant’s predicate felony conviction was obtained in derogation of his constitutional rights (see CPL 400.21, subds 5, 7, par [b]; People u Barrows, 65 AD2d 625; People v Fraser, 54 AD2d 965; cf. People v De Berry, 73 AD2d 652). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendant and find them to be without merit (see People v Guzman, 89 AD2d 14 and People v Wells, 89 AD2d 1020 with respect to defendant’s claim as to the Grand Jury). O’Connor, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 1020, 454 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jensen-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack