People v. Floyd

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Favor

    82 N.Y.2d 254 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 252 times
    Holding right to be present at Sandoval hearing conferred by state law

    A similar situation existed in the First Department, which first addressed the issue in December of 1990 (People v Lee, 168 A.D.2d 267) and then, in the three successive cases raising the issue, reached inconclusive results (compare, People v Rose, 175 A.D.2d 32, affd 80 N.Y.2d 802; with People v Jordan, 174 A.D.2d 490; and People v Cruz, 179 A.D.2d 529, revd 81 N.Y.2d 738, supra). The Second Department also demonstrated some uncertainty about the correct resolution of the issue (compare, People v Scott, 163 A.D.2d 341; and People v Jenkins, 157 A.D.2d 854; with People vPeterson, 151 A.D.2d 512; People v Dokes, 173 A.D.2d 724, revd 79 N.Y.2d 656, supra; People v Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770; People v Ray, 184 A.D.2d 596; People v Gebrosky, 181 A.D.2d 692, revd 80 N.Y.2d 995, supra). In fact, the only real consistency on the issue came from the Fourth Department, which held, in a series of 1991 decisions, that the defendant's exclusion from Sandoval hearings did not require reversal in the absence of preservation or a showing of prejudice (People v Wynn, 175 A.D.2d 659; People v Lomack, 174 A.D.2d 1037; People v Alexander, 174 A.D.2d 996, revd 80 N.Y.2d 801; People v Cole, 174 A.D.2d 970; People v Favor, 172 A.D.2d 1052, supra [revd herein]; People v Dunbar, 172 A.D.2d 1006). And, even these Fourth Department decisions, which rested primarily on preservation grounds, could hardly be regarded as ringing endorsements of the practice of excluding the accused from Sandoval hearings.

  2. People v. Ramos

    224 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial as a result of being tried in absentia after he absconded in the midst of his trial (see, People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136; People v. Roe, 196 A.D.2d 899; People v. Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

  3. People v. Roe

    196 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 10 times

    In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Lewis, 182 A.D.2d 777; People v McKinnon, 176 A.D.2d 193; People v Santiago, 176 A.D.2d 521). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that he was not deprived of a fair trial by being tried in absentia after he absconded at the commencement of the trial (see, People v Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136; People v Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770; People v Melendez, 160 A.D.2d 739; see also, People v Wallace, 182 A.D.2d 1079; cf., People v Amato, 172 A.D.2d 545). The defendant's contention regarding the inadequacy of the court's adverse inference charge, imposed as an appropriate sanction for the destruction of the scratch paper upon which the arresting officer had originally written the descriptions of the perpetrators (see, People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953; People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Lawley, 196 A.D.2d 890 [decided herewith]; People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v Morillo, 181 A.D.2d 532).

  4. People v. Ray

    184 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    The defendant contends that he was denied due process of law because he was not present at the Sandoval conference held in the court's chambers. This contention, raised for the first time after the conclusion of trial, is without merit (see, People v Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770). There is no indication that the parties attached any significance to the defendant's absence or that any dispute concerning the defendant's criminal record was raised at the conference (cf., People v. Jenkins, 157 A.D.2d 854). The defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was in any way prejudiced by his absence from the Sandoval conference or that his ability to defend himself was in any way compromised (see, People v. Floyd, supra).

  5. People v. Deacon

    183 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    Also without merit is the defendant's claim that he was denied the right to be present at all material stages of the trial. Essentially, a defendant's "presence is required only where his absence would have a substantial effect on his ability to defend" (People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472, citing Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 108; People v. Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770). Thus, where a defendant's absence does not prejudice him or affect his ability to defend, there is no deprivation of due process.

  6. People v. Harrison

    181 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    , People v Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871; see, People v Reed, 168 A.D.2d 645, 646). Moreover, since the transcript of the proceeding was available to the defense before trial, the defendant's absence did not have substantial effect on his ability to defend (see, People v Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918; see, People v Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770; People v Dokes, 173 A.D.2d 724, lv granted 78 N.Y.2d 1075; People v Jordan, 174 A.D.2d 490; cf., People v Turaine, supra). We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

  7. People v. Gebrosky

    181 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Further, we find that, under the facts of this case, the defendant's absence from a portion of the Sandoval hearing did not prejudice him or affect his ability to defend and thus did not constitute a deprivation of due process (see, People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770; People v Dokes, 173 A.D.2d 724). The defendant was present when the court made its ruling. Also, although a dispute arose as to the nature of a prior conviction, the defendant was present for part of this discussion and the court prohibited the prosecutor from cross-examining the defendant as to this conviction.