From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Byas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1991
173 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 16, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Harold Rothwax, J.


Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing and trial by his abusive behavior directed toward his appointed counsel and the court, by insisting that he did not wish to be present, and by stating that he would continue to "act up" if compelled to remain in the courtroom (Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97).

The trial court properly denied defendant's eleventh hour application for a substitution of attorneys after reviewing the matter in detail and determining that defendant's attack on the experienced trial counsel's competence was meritless. Reviewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, it is clear that defense counsel rendered comprehensive and vigorous advocacy on behalf of defendant, which admirably comported with accepted standards for effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

Likewise without merit is defendant's claim that the hearing court erroneously denied his application to call the complainants to testify at the Wade hearing. As the hearing court noted, there were no indicia that the identification procedures were suggestive in any way, and in such circumstances defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant (see, e.g., People v Peterkin, 75 N.Y.2d 985).

Evidence adduced at trial presented overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt in four knifepoint robberies during a six-week period, during which he threatened the lives of the female victims and two children who happened to accompany two of the victims. Combined with the trial court's review at sentencing of defendant's probation report and extensive prior violent criminal history, we perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing sentence (see, e.g., People v Junco, 43 A.D.2d 266, affd 35 N.Y.2d 419, cert denied 421 U.S. 951). However, we note that pursuant to the provisions of Penal Law § 70.30, the aggregate of the four consecutive sentences imposed upon defendant will be deemed, automatically, to constitute a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 50 years imprisonment (Penal Law § 70.30 [c] [iii]; see also, People v Moore, 61 N.Y.2d 575).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Byas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1991
173 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Byas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WALTER BYAS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 16, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 698

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

However, we caution that the better practice would be for even this mechanical step to be conducted by the…

People v. Scarola

There is no merit to defendant's argument that his sentence must be reduced under Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (c),…