Summary
In People v. Frias, 25 AD3d 384 (1st Dept. 2006), the Court did not discuss the waiver analysis but simply relied on the fact the defendant was not available to obey the mandate of the Court in the event of an affirmance.
Summary of this case from People v. HidalgoOpinion
7535.
January 10, 2006.
Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J.), rendered May 22, 2003, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years, unanimously dismissed.
Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Paul Wiener of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Mary Jo L. Blanchard of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ., concur.
Since defendant has been deported, he is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court in the event of affirmance ( see e.g. People v. Llama, 19 AD3d 170). Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed. Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.