People v. Chicas
| Decision Date | 09 May 1994 |
| Citation | 611 N.Y.S.2d 873,204 A.D.2d 476 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel CHICAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kliegerman & Friess, New York City (Ronald E. Kliegerman, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Robin A. Forshaw and Bruce Seeliger, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered July 30, 1991, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
While the defendant has a constitutional right to be present at any material stage of the trial, and proceedings where testimony is received are considered to be material stages, the defendant's presence is only required where his absence would have a substantial effect on his ability to defend (see, People v. Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871, 573 N.Y.S.2d 64, 577 N.E.2d 55; see also, People v. Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 403 N.Y.S.2d 470, 374 N.E.2d 369). Here, the absence of both the defendant and his counsel from an in-camera hearing, held by the trial court in order to determine whether the defendant and his companion had made threatening statements to one of the People's witnesses in an effort to coerce the witness to testify favorably for the defendant, did not have a substantial effect upon the defendant's ability to defend himself. Although the defense counsel knew that the in-camera hearing was occurring, he failed to object. Therefore, it may be implied that he did not consider the inquiry to have any prejudicial effect (see, People v. Harrison, 181 A.D.2d 743, 581 N.Y.S.2d 232). Moreover, since the defense counsel was provided with a transcript of the testimony prior to cross-examining the witness, there was adequate opportunity to confront the witness. We further note that in the case at bar the outcome of the in-camera hearing was wholly favorable to the defendant (cf., People v. Turaine, supra; see also, People v. Harrison, supra, at 744, 581 N.Y.S.2d 232).
Further, the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. It is incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...as it added an entirely new count to the indictment (see, id., at 276, 609 N.Y.S.2d 564, 631 N.E.2d 570; see also, People v. Chicas, 204 A.D.2d 476, 477, 611 N.Y.S.2d 873, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 906, 621 N.Y.S.2d 523, 645 N.E.2d 1223). Likewise, an amendment modifying the charge from murder in......
-
People v. Richard
...to make a pretrial motion is without merit (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. Chicas, 204 A.D.2d 476, 611 N.Y.S.2d 873). Upon review of the record as a whole, we find that the defendant was not denied meaningful representation (see, e.g., ......
-
People v. Jones
...but did not include it in the indictment, subsequent amendment to cure this error is not authorized by CPL 200.70]; People v. Chicas, 204 A.D.2d 476, 611 N.Y.S.2d 873, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 906, 621 N.Y.S.2d 523, 645 N.E.2d 1223 [same] ). Because the court lacked the authority to amend the i......
- People v. Chavous