People v. Wall
| Decision Date | 26 December 2013 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Carl A. WALL, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
112 A.D.3d 900
977 N.Y.S.2d 394
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08605
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,
v.
Carl A. WALL, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 26, 2013.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel; Gregory B. Haynes on the brief), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated June 18, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant contends that the County Court violated his due process right to appear at his risk assessment hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( seeCorrection Law § 168–n[3]; People v. Gonzalez, 69 A.D.3d 819, 892 N.Y.S.2d 774) when it conducted the hearing in his absence. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant's counsel, who represented him at the hearing, did not object ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Warrington, 19 A.D.3d 881, 797 N.Y.S.2d 622).
In any event, the contention is without merit. “Where it is clear that the defendant's absence is deliberate, despite knowledge that the [hearing] is about to begin, he or she forfeits his or her right to be present, regardless of whether he or she was informed that the [hearing] would proceed in his or her absence” (People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d 99, 104, 763 N.Y.S.2d 86). Here, after being notified of his right to a hearing, at which he would be represented by counsel, as well as of the purpose and date of the hearing, the defendant sent a handwritten letter to the County Court, acknowledging his understanding of his right to a hearing and his right to counsel, but indicating that he did not wish to appear at the hearing. Under these circumstances, the County Court correctly determined that the defendant forfeited his right to be present at the hearing, and properly proceeded with the hearing in his absence ( see People v. Abdul–Jalil, 83 A.D.3d 809, 920 N.Y.S.2d 676; People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d 99, 763 N.Y.S.2d 86; cf. People v. Ginyard, 101 A.D.3d 1095, 958 N.Y.S.2d 154; People v. Jackson, 94 A.D.3d 961, 942 N.Y.S.2d 550; People v. Porter, 37 A.D.3d 797, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner
...Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 912, 2015 WL 3951953 [2015] ), by conducting the hearing in his absence (see People v. Wall , 112 A.D.3d 900, 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2d Dept. 2013] ), and by allegedly failing to provide him with certain documents prior to the hearing (see People v. Wise , 1......
-
People v. Poleun
...his contention that County Court's acceptance of his waiver of appearance constituted a violation of due process ( see People v. Wall, 112 A.D.3d 900, 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 394;see also People v. Warrington, 19 A.D.3d 881, 882, 797 N.Y.S.2d 622;see generally People v. Charache, 9 N.Y.3d 829, 83......
-
People v. Feurtado
...by the loss of certain Rosario material ( see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied [977 N.Y.S.2d 394]368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64), and thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to give an adverse inference charge with respect to the co......
-
People v. Jackson
...informing him of the consequences of failing to appear (see People v. Sorto, 124 A.D.3d 744, 744, 998 N.Y.S.2d 641 ; People v. Wall, 112 A.D.3d 900, 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 394 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The defendant was notified of his right to a SORA hearing,......