People v. Keno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keno

276 A.D.2d 325, 714 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 325 (People v. Keno) 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. Keno, 276 A.D.2d 325, 714 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 11, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and summarily holding defendant in criminal contempt, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 years and to a consecutive term of 30 days for contempt, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary action in holding defendant in criminal contempt was proper where, moments after being sentenced, he told the court to “drop dead” (see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [13; § 755; 22 NYCRR 604.2 [a]; Matter of Roajas v Recant, 249 AD2d 95). The proceeding against defendant was still in progress at the time of the contempt, particularly since defendant was in the process of being advised of his right to appeal. While defendant claims that he was denied the opportunity to make a statement in mitigation, the proper remedy for such a defect would be a remand for further proceedings (see, Matter of Roajas v Recant, supra), and defendant has expressly declined to pursue such remedy on appeal.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 11, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and summarily holding defendant in criminal contempt, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 years and to a consecutive term of 30 days for contempt, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary action in holding defendant in criminal contempt was proper where, moments after being sentenced, he told the court to “drop dead” (see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [13; § 755; 22 NYCRR 604.2 [a]; Matter of Roajas v Recant, 249 AD2d 95). The proceeding against defendant was still in progress at the time of the contempt, particularly since defendant was in the process of being advised of his right to appeal. While defendant claims that he was denied the opportunity to make a statement in mitigation, the proper remedy for such a defect would be a remand for further proceedings (see, Matter of Roajas v Recant, supra), and defendant has expressly declined to pursue such remedy on appeal.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 325, 714 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keno-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack