People v. Shepherd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shepherd

260 A.D.2d 649, 687 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4254

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 649 (People v. Shepherd) 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. Shepherd, 260 A.D.2d 649, 687 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered September 5, 1996, convict[650]*650ing him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record does not support the defendant’s contention that he was wrongfully excluded from material stages of the trial. The record belies his claim that he was excluded from the Sandoval hearing since the defendant addressed the court directly. The specific bench conferences the defendant claims to have been excluded from concerned issues of law or procedure, and thus did not require his presence (see, People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, 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, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered September 5, 1996, convict[650]*650ing him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record does not support the defendant’s contention that he was wrongfully excluded from material stages of the trial. The record belies his claim that he was excluded from the Sandoval hearing since the defendant addressed the court directly. The specific bench conferences the defendant claims to have been excluded from concerned issues of law or procedure, and thus did not require his presence (see, People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 649, 687 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shepherd-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack