People v. Law
| Decision Date | 06 December 1993 |
| Citation | 199 A.D.2d 282,605 N.Y.S.2d 943 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ricky LAW, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William M. Kunstler and Ronald L. Kuby, New York City, for appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Guy Arcidiacono, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.), rendered March 30, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, to hear and report on the question of whether the defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.
The defendant contends that he was not present during the Sandoval hearing and that, therefore, his conviction must be reversed (see, People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 604 N.Y.S.2d 494, 624 N.E.2d 631; People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836). The Sandoval hearing was held in chambers, and the record is silent as to whether the defendant was present (cf., People v. Robinson, 191 A.D.2d 523, 595 N.Y.S.2d 56, where the Sandoval hearing was held in open court). Although we find that the defendant's presence at the Sandoval hearing would not have been merely "superfluous" because the Sandoval ruling was not "wholly favorable" to him (see, People v. Favor, supra ), the threshold factual issue as to the defendant's presence or absence at the Sandoval hearing must be resolved before this appeal is decided. Thus, the appeal is held in abeyance and the case is remitted to the trial court for a hearing on this matter (see, People v. Mitchell, 189 A.D.2d 337, 596 N.Y.S.2d 612; People v. Rose, 172 A.D.2d 230, 568 N.Y.S.2d 693, affd. 80 N.Y.2d 802, 587 N.Y.S.2d 286, 599 N.E.2d 690; People v. Laracuente, 125 A.D.2d 705, 510 N.Y.S.2d 192).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Powell
...presence have been superfluous, People v. Dokes, supra at 662, 584 N.Y.S.2d at 765, 595 N.E.2d at 840; People v. Law, 199 A.D.2d 282, 605 N.Y.S.2d 943 (2nd Dept.1993) or whether the outcome was less than favorable to the defendant, People v. Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872, 609 N.Y.S.2d 166, 631 N.E.2......
-
People v. Davis
...for a reconstruction hearing on this matter (see, People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906, 609 N.Y.S.2d 172, 631 N.E.2d 114; People v. Law, 199 A.D.2d 282, 605 N.Y.S.2d 943). We draw a similar conclusion with respect to the third discussion challenged by the defendant. The court questioned a pros......
-
People v. McGee
...Calizaire, 190 A.D.2d 857, 593 N.Y.S.2d 879; cf., People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906, 609 N.Y.S.2d 172, 631 N.E.2d 114; People v. Law, 199 A.D.2d 282, 605 N.Y.S.2d 943). Defendant's contentions alleging error pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, are simi......
-
People v. Jackson
...82 N.Y.2d 872, 609 N.Y.S.2d 166, 631 N.E.2d 108; People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906, 609 N.Y.S.2d 172, 631 N.E.2d 114; People v. Law, 199 A.D.2d 282, 605 N.Y.S.2d 943). Therefore, since the defendant was not present at the Sandoval hearing, reversal of the judgment is warranted. Furthermore,......