People v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parker

268 A.D.2d 304, 701 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 445

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 304 (People v. Parker) 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. Parker, 268 A.D.2d 304, 701 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.), rendered June 9, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first and second degrees, sexual abuse in the first degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourt¡h degree, menacing in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of lSVs to 40 years, unanimously affirmed.

We find no violation of defendant’s right to be present. Since the conferences in question involved questions of law as to the [305]*305scope of cross-examination of a witness and the propriety of defendant’s opening statement, defendant’s presence was not required because his absence would not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend (see, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586; People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450).

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to expand by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.), rendered June 9, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first and second degrees, sexual abuse in the first degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourt¡h degree, menacing in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of lSVs to 40 years, unanimously affirmed.

We find no violation of defendant’s right to be present. Since the conferences in question involved questions of law as to the [305]*305scope of cross-examination of a witness and the propriety of defendant’s opening statement, defendant’s presence was not required because his absence would not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend (see, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586; People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450).

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to expand by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 304, 701 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parker-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack