People v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robinson

37 A.D.3d 623, 828 N.Y.S.2d 818

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 623 (People v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 37 A.D.3d 623, 828 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[624]*624Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered March 3, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in replacing a sworn juror on the ground of illness. The record shows that the court made a “reasonably thorough inquiry” (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]) into the juror’s unavailability, afforded the parties the opportunity to be heard, and placed the facts and reasons for its determination on the record (see CPL 270.35 [2] [b]; People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507, 516 [2000]; People v Shelton, 31 AD3d 791, 791-792 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 851 [2006]; People v Merritt, 299 AD2d 370, 370-371 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

[624]*624Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered March 3, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in replacing a sworn juror on the ground of illness. The record shows that the court made a “reasonably thorough inquiry” (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]) into the juror’s unavailability, afforded the parties the opportunity to be heard, and placed the facts and reasons for its determination on the record (see CPL 270.35 [2] [b]; People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507, 516 [2000]; People v Shelton, 31 AD3d 791, 791-792 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 851 [2006]; People v Merritt, 299 AD2d 370, 370-371 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 623, 828 N.Y.S.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack