People v. Suazo
| Decision Date | 03 January 2017 |
| Citation | 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00030,45 N.Y.S.3d 31,146 A.D.3d 423 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Saylor SUAZO, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
146 A.D.3d 423
45 N.Y.S.3d 31
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00030
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Saylor SUAZO, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan. 3, 2017.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark Zeno, of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Catherine M. Reno of counsel), for respondent.
SAXE, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, KAHN, GESMER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), rendered March 27, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, menacing in the third degree and attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 60 days, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant argues that he was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial, even though he was only being tried for class B misdemeanors carrying maximum sentences of 90 days, because as a noncitizen he would be allegedly be deportable if convicted of any domestic violence crime. However, "a defendant's right to a jury trial attaches only to serious offenses, not to petty crimes, the determining factor being length of exposure to incarceration" (People v. Urbaez, 10 N.Y.3d 773, 774, 856 N.Y.S.2d 520, 886 N.E.2d 142 [2008] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also People v. Foy, 88 N.Y.2d 742, 745, 650 N.Y.S.2d 79, 673 N.E.2d 589 [1996] ). "An offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed petty, unless the legislature has authorized additional statutory penalties so severe as to indicate that the legislature considered the offense serious" (
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163, 135 L.Ed.2d 590 [1996] )....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bado v. United States
...drug possession or PDP statutes, and the trial judge had no authority to impose them as part of Foote's sentence"); People v. Suazo , 146 A.D.3d 423, 45 N.Y.S.3d 31, 32 ("Despite the gravity of the impact of deportation on a convicted defendant (see Padilla ...), deportation consequences ar......
-
People v. Suazo
...is a collateral consequence of conviction and, as such, does not trigger the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial ( 146 A.D.3d 423, 45 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept. 2017] ). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal ( 29 N.Y.3d 1087, 64 N.Y.S.3d 177, 86 N.E.3d 264 [2017] ), and ......
-
People v. Udeke
...The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment of conviction, and in reliance on the First Department's decision in People v. Suazo, 146 A.D.3d 423, 423, 45 N.Y.S.3d 31(1st Dept. 2017), lv. granted , 29 N.Y.3d 1087, 64 N.Y.S.3d 177, 86 N.E.3d 264(2017), revd. , 32 N.Y.3d 491, 93 N.Y.S.3d 629, 118......
- In re Ja'Vaughn Kiaymonie S.