People v. Riquelme

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riquelme

244 A.D.2d 579, 665 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11824

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 579 (People v. Riquelme) 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. Riquelme, 244 A.D.2d 579, 665 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered March 27, 1996, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (four counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, his absence during a portion of the Wade hearing does not mandate reversal in this case. The record supports the finding that the defendant validly waived his right to be present. The circumstances surrounding the defendant’s absence indicated that the defendant’s absence was knowing and voluntary (see, People v Lynes, 197 AD2d 381). Moreover, the colloquy between the bench and counsel reflected that the defendant had excluded himself for strategic reasons under the advisement of his attorney.

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Copertino, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered March 27, 1996, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (four counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, his absence during a portion of the Wade hearing does not mandate reversal in this case. The record supports the finding that the defendant validly waived his right to be present. The circumstances surrounding the defendant’s absence indicated that the defendant’s absence was knowing and voluntary (see, People v Lynes, 197 AD2d 381). Moreover, the colloquy between the bench and counsel reflected that the defendant had excluded himself for strategic reasons under the advisement of his attorney.

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Copertino, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 579, 665 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riquelme-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack