People v. Steenwerth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Steenwerth

279 A.D.2d 641, 719 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 865

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 641 (People v. Steenwerth) 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. Steenwerth, 279 A.D.2d 641, 719 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[642]*642Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to be present at all material stages of the trial by his exclusion from sidebar discussions during voir dire is without merit. With respect to those sidebar conferences at which he was not present, the defendant made an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary waiver of his right to be present (see, People v Stokes, 216 AD2d 337).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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. Leone, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[642]*642Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to be present at all material stages of the trial by his exclusion from sidebar discussions during voir dire is without merit. With respect to those sidebar conferences at which he was not present, the defendant made an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary waiver of his right to be present (see, People v Stokes, 216 AD2d 337).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 641, 719 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steenwerth-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack