People v. Urbaez
| Decision Date | 13 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 35.,35. |
| Citation | 10 N.Y.3d 773,886 N.E.2d 142 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marcos URBAEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.
On or about May 15, 2004, defendant placed a telephone call to the mother of his two teenage boys in which he threatened to withhold payment of child support, beat her, knock out her teeth and break her face. Based on that call, defendant was charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, an A misdemeanor under Penal Law § 240.30(1), and harassment in the second degree, a violation under Penal Law § 240.26(1).
On the trial date some months later, the People moved to reduce the A misdemeanor to attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, a B misdemeanor. Over defendant's objection that the People were reducing the charge simply to deny him his right to a trial by jury, the judge permitted reduction to the lesser-included offense. The People then renewed their plea offer of a violation conditioned on compliance with an order of protection, which defendant rejected. After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of both offenses and sentenced to a conditional discharge with an order of protection. Defendant now complains that he was wrongfully stripped of his right to a jury.
It is well established that a defendant's right to a jury trial attaches only to "serious offenses," not to "petty crimes" (Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 [1888]), the determining factor being length of exposure to incarceration (Matter of Morgenthau v. Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143, 153, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150 [1983]). No jury right attaches when maximum incarceration is six months or less (Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 [1970]). When the charge is a misdemeanor for which the authorized term of imprisonment is not more than six months—which includes all B misdemeanors having a maximum jail sentence of three months—New York City criminal courts must conduct a bench trial (CPL 340.40[2]). Especially in New York City, with its high volume of misdemeanor cases, this statute furthers the important public interest of effective judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis
...350.20 his case would have proceeded to a bench trial before a Criminal Court judge (see CPL 340.40[2]; People v. Urbaez, 10 N.Y.3d 773, 775, 856 N.Y.S.2d 520, 886 N.E.2d 142 [2008]). Defendant points to nothing in the nature of a consensual JHO adjudication that gives rise to any substanti......
-
People v. Suazo
...cases, [ CPL § 340.40 ] furthers the important public interest of effective judicial administration" ( People v. Urbaez, 10 N.Y.3d 773, 775, 856 N.Y.S.2d 520, 886 N.E.2d 142 [2008] ; see also People v. Moses, 57 Misc.2d 960, 294 N.Y.S.2d 12, 21 [N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1968] ["To be a judge in the N......
-
Doorley v. DeMarco
...). It is well settled, however, that prosecutors have “broad discretion to decide what crimes to charge” ( People v. Urbaez, 10 N.Y.3d 773, 775, 856 N.Y.S.2d 520, 886 N.E.2d 142;see People v. Lawrence, 81 A.D.3d 1326, 1326, 916 N.Y.S.2d 393,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 797, 929 N.Y.S.2d 105, 952 N.E......
-
Sain v. Capra
... ... 7 ... The ... Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed ... Petitioner's conviction on November 27, 2013. People ... v. Sain , 111 A.D.3d 964 (2d Dep't 2013) ... (“ Sain I ”); see Resp. Ex. 8 ... Petitioner's counsel thereafter filed an ... larceny, rather than seeking a more serious charge. See ... People v. Urbaez , 10 N.Y.3d 773, 775 (2008) (“The ... law also provides the prosecutor with broad discretion ... to decide what crimes to charge, ... ...