People v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Porter

201 A.D.2d 881, 607 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 881 (People v. Porter) 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. Porter, 201 A.D.2d 881, 607 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion, made at the time of trial, for an adjournment for 30 days to retain new counsel (see, People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271). Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently relinquished his right to be present at trial (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 349-351, cert [882]*882denied 423 US 999). We reject the argument of defendant that his waiver was not voluntary because the court denied his motion for an adjournment. Defendant’s remedy to correct any perceived erroneous ruling is by appealing and not by "withdrawing” from the trial.

We have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.— Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion, made at the time of trial, for an adjournment for 30 days to retain new counsel (see, People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271). Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently relinquished his right to be present at trial (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 349-351, cert [882]*882denied 423 US 999). We reject the argument of defendant that his waiver was not voluntary because the court denied his motion for an adjournment. Defendant’s remedy to correct any perceived erroneous ruling is by appealing and not by "withdrawing” from the trial.

We have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.— Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 881, 607 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-porter-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack