People v. Roden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roden

3 A.D.3d 432, 771 N.Y.S.2d 123

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 432 (People v. Roden) 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. Roden, 3 A.D.3d 432, 771 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered June 10, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly proceeded with the trial in defendant’s absence since defendant forfeited his right to be present (see People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436 [1985]). Defendant was present when the prosecutor and defense counsel announced their readiness for trial, and the court told everyone that they were “on trial,” awaiting assignment to a courtroom that would be available shortly. The next day, when a courtroom became available, defendant did not appear, and defense counsel advised the court that defendant had been in his office the previous day and knew that he was required to be in court.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered June 10, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly proceeded with the trial in defendant’s absence since defendant forfeited his right to be present (see People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436 [1985]). Defendant was present when the prosecutor and defense counsel announced their readiness for trial, and the court told everyone that they were “on trial,” awaiting assignment to a courtroom that would be available shortly. The next day, when a courtroom became available, defendant did not appear, and defense counsel advised the court that defendant had been in his office the previous day and knew that he was required to be in court.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 432, 771 N.Y.S.2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roden-nyappdiv-2004.