From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1999
267 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 16, 1999

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J., at suppression hearing; Felice Shea, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 3, 1997, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the second degree and one count of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 18 years to life on the robbery in the second degree convictions and 14 years to life on the robbery in the third degree conviction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence imposed on the third-degree robbery count and replacing it with a sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years as a second felony offender, and otherwise affirmed.

Peter Hinckley for Respondent.

Judith Stern for Defendant-Appellant.

ELLERIN, P.J., WALLACH, LERNER, ANDRIAS, SAXE, JJ.


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. At the hearing, the People met their burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the pretrial identification procedures, and defendant did not establish any illegality.

Since defendant refused to accept the court's offer to discharge the jury and conduct a new voir dire in his presence, he waived his present claim that the court improperly excluded him from a portion of jury selection (see, People v. Roman, 88 N.Y.2d 18; People v. Miller, 41 N.Y.2d 857; People v. Carrero, 216 A.D.2d 148, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 791). In any event, the totality of the record establishes that defendant, who was engaged in a pattern of refusing to attend his trial as a means of protesting the court's denial of his groundless request for new counsel, exercised a knowing, voluntary, intelligent and unconditional waiver of his right to be present throughout (see, People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363).

As the People correctly concede, the sentence imposed on defendant as a persistent violent felony offender for his conviction of robbery in the third degree was illegal since that crime is not classified as a violent felony offense. In view of the valid concurrent sentences of 18 years to life, we see no need for a remand for resentencing (see, People v. Aponte, 240 A.D.2d 317, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 868), and instead reduce the sentence for the third-degree robbery conviction to 3+ to 7 years, as a second felony offender rather than as a persistent violent felony offender.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1999
267 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARSHALL COLEMAN…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 692

Citing Cases

People v. White

However, as the People correctly concede, the term of 6 to 12 years for criminal possession of a controlled…

People v. Caldwell

02(1), which is not classified as a violent felony (Penal Law § 70.02[c]). In view of the valid concurrent…