People v. Sanchez
| Citation | 65 N.Y.2d 436,482 N.E.2d 56,492 N.Y.S.2d 577 |
| Parties | , 482 N.E.2d 56 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Freddy SANCHEZ, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Howard FRASER, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyrone MAGGETTE, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alvin GRANT, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Pedro RIVERA, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1985 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
In each of these five criminal cases, the defendant was tried and convicted in absentia, having failed to return to the courthouse after being present when his case was assigned for immediate trial. At issue is whether the rationale in People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313 mandates the reversal of the convictions because the defendants were not warned of the consequences of a failure to return to court. We determine that it does not.
Defendant, Freddy Sanchez, appeals from an order of the Appellate Division affirming a judgment convicting him of robbery in the second degree. 101 A.D.2d 1032, 475 N.Y.S.2d 964.
Defendant was present in the courtroom when his attorney announced he was ready for trial and when the calendar justice referred the case to a Part for trial stating, Defendant went to Justice Sullivan's courtroom, Part 51, but he left the courthouse before his case was called in that Part. The trial was adjourned until the following morning to allow defendant's attorney to investigate his client's disappearance.
The next morning defendant appeared in his attorney's office but, in spite of his attorney's direction, he failed to return to court. Following a hearing that afternoon, Justice Sullivan found that the People had made a reasonable and diligent effort to find defendant and that defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial. He proceeded to try the defendant in absentia after the weekend recess.
Defendant, Howard Fraser, appeals from an order of the Appellate Division affirming a judgment convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. 101 A.D.2d 1030, 475 N.Y.S.2d 963.
Defendant was present during the first day of jury selection. After five jurors were sworn, the court adjourned for the day, telling everyone to return to the courtroom at 9:45 the next morning. When defendant failed to appear the next morning, the court adjourned the matter until 2:30 in the afternoon.
Following a hearing that afternoon, the court found that the defendant's absence was voluntary and that he had waived his right to be present during his trial. The court then continued with the selection of the remaining jurors and completed the trial in defendant's absence.
Defendant, Tyrone Maggette, appeals from an order of the Appellate Division affirming a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second and third degrees. 104 A.D.2d 1061, 480 N.Y.S.2d 796.
At a suppression hearing held immediately before trial, the court told the District Attorney, defense counsel and defendant that they should consider themselves on trial. It also warned the defendant that it would not tolerate any delay caused by the defendant, and in case of such delay it would seriously consider remanding the defendant to jail. Following the hearing and after the court denied the motion to suppress a statement defendant made to the police, defense counsel and the District Attorney discussed a possible plea. When the court refused defendant's request that he remain on bail pending sentence, defendant rejected the plea offer. Thereupon, the court told the clerk to order a panel of jurors and adjourned until 11:00 a.m. to await the arrival of the panel.
Defendant was absent when the panel arrived and when he failed to appear by 2:00 p.m., the court proceeded with the trial. After two days of jury selection and before the last juror was sworn, the court conducted a hearing to determine whether the defendant's absence was voluntary. Following the hearing, the court found that defendant had absconded and thus had waived the right to be present at his trial. The trial continued in defendant's absence.
Defendant, Alvin Grant, appeals from an order of the Appellate Division affirming a judgment of Supreme Court convicting him of robbery in the first degree. 102 A.D.2d 1015, 476 N.Y.S.2d 229.
Defendant was present when the trial court held a Sandoval hearing, had the jury panel sworn, and instructed the panel. Before the attorneys began questioning the prospective jurors, the court recessed for the day and directed everyone to return to the courtroom at 9:30 the next morning. When the defendant failed to appear the next morning, the court adjourned the case until the following day. The following day when defendant failed to appear, the court after hearing of the efforts made by defense counsel and the District Attorney to locate defendant, continued with the jury selection and completed the trial in defendant's absence.
The People appeal from an order of the Appellate Division reversing, on the law, a judgment of Supreme Court convicting defendant, Pedro Rivera, of robbery in the first degree. 103 A.D.2d 225, 479 N.Y.S.2d 57.
When defendant appeared at calendar call, the District Attorney and defense counsel stated that the case was ready for trial and the court announced that it was sending the case to "Part 55, Judge Goldman, 10th Floor of this building for trial." Defendant's attorney directed defendant to the proper courtroom, but defendant failed to appear. After waiting several hours, the trial court issued a warrant for defendant's arrest and adjourned the trial for six weeks. On the adjourned date, following a hearing, the court found that the defendant had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to attend his trial, and it proceeded to try the defendant in absentia.
Citing People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313, supra, each of the defendants contends that he did not waive his right to be present at trial because he was not expressly warned of the consequences of his failure to reappear in court. In Parker, supra, the court held that a defendant who had received notice of the date for trial did not waive her right to be present by voluntarily failing to appear on the assigned date where she had not been warned that the trial would proceed in her absence ( People v. Parker, supra, pp. 138, 141, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313). The court recognized, however, that the right may be lost, under certain circumstances, as in Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174.
In Taylor, supra, the Supreme Court held that a defendant who had attended the opening of his trial and deliberately failed to return after the luncheon recess could be tried in absentia,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinkney v. State
...from trial after having been advised of the trial date forfeited his right to be present at trial. People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 580-81, 482 N.E.2d 56, 59-60 (1985). Defining forfeiture in this context, the court said: "Forfeiture, unlike an express waiver which involv......
-
State v. Hudson
...is represented by counsel at trial, and never offers a satisfactory explanation for his absence"). Compare People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56 (1985) (concluding that defendant who knows that trial will continue in his absence but absconds after trial has begun......
-
Clark v. Perez
...17, 19-20, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973); Clark v. Stinson, 214 F.3d 315, 324-25 (2d Cir.2000); People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 443-44, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56 (1985)). 240. Id. at 241. 7/25/83 Tr. at 1018-19. 242. Locascio, 6 F.3d at 931 (quoting Wheat, 486 U.S. at 160, 108......
- People v. Crespo