People v. Lawson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawson

162 A.D.2d 962, 557 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Lawson) 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. Lawson, 162 A.D.2d 962, 557 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. [963]*963Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that reversible error was committed when the court commenced a second felony offender hearing in his absence. At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel observed that he did not know why defendant was absent, made no request for an adjournment, and instead, proceeded to make a legal argument in support of defendant’s position. Défendant appeared a few minutes later. The court recessed to enable defendant’s counsel to apprise defendant of the argument that had been made in his absence. Thereafter, counsel indicated that the defendant reaffirmed the argument that had been made in his absence. We conclude that, by ratifying the acts of his attorney performed during his absence, defendant waived his right to be present throughout the proceeding (see, People v Windley, 134 AD2d 386).

We have reviewed the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—sexual abuse, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. [963]*963Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that reversible error was committed when the court commenced a second felony offender hearing in his absence. At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel observed that he did not know why defendant was absent, made no request for an adjournment, and instead, proceeded to make a legal argument in support of defendant’s position. Défendant appeared a few minutes later. The court recessed to enable defendant’s counsel to apprise defendant of the argument that had been made in his absence. Thereafter, counsel indicated that the defendant reaffirmed the argument that had been made in his absence. We conclude that, by ratifying the acts of his attorney performed during his absence, defendant waived his right to be present throughout the proceeding (see, People v Windley, 134 AD2d 386).

We have reviewed the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—sexual abuse, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 962, 557 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawson-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack