People v. Sharpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sharpe

225 A.D.2d 1075, 639 N.Y.2d 597, 639 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2914

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1075 (People v. Sharpe) 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. Sharpe, 225 A.D.2d 1075, 639 N.Y.2d 597, 639 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: By order dated March 17, 1995, this Court held defendant’s appeal, reserved decision and remitted the matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Sharpe, 213 AD2d 1008). The reconstruction hearing was held on May 31, 1995. The record of that hearing discloses that the issue of defendant’s presence was sharply contested. County Court, however, neither made findings of fact nor a determination whether defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing. "Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses” (People v Michalek, 218 AD2d 750, 751, lv denied 86 NY2d 874). We, therefore, reserve decision and remit the matter to Oneida County Court to make findings of fact and a determination whether defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Ireland, 222 AD2d 1075; People v Miller, 221 AD2d 1001). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: By order dated March 17, 1995, this Court held defendant’s appeal, reserved decision and remitted the matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present at an in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Sharpe, 213 AD2d 1008). The reconstruction hearing was held on May 31, 1995. The record of that hearing discloses that the issue of defendant’s presence was sharply contested. County Court, however, neither made findings of fact nor a determination whether defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing. "Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses” (People v Michalek, 218 AD2d 750, 751, lv denied 86 NY2d 874). We, therefore, reserve decision and remit the matter to Oneida County Court to make findings of fact and a determination whether defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Ireland, 222 AD2d 1075; People v Miller, 221 AD2d 1001). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1075, 639 N.Y.2d 597, 639 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sharpe-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack