From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 20, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Joseph Cerbone, J.


Defendant's argument that he was deprived of his due process right to be present at all material stages of his trial because he was not present during the Sandoval hearing, is without merit in the circumstances. Inquiry was precluded regarding two prior misdemeanor convictions, limited to only the fact of one prior felony conviction, and permitted as to defendant's other prior felony conviction and the underlying facts thereof (regarding possession of a stolen automobile). The trial court's ruling on defendant's undisputed criminal record, made only after the court duly heard full argument of counsel, clearly constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Lee, 168 A.D.2d 267). Additionally, defendant concedes that "none of the parties attached any significance" to defendant's absence from the courtroom at the time of the ruling. Nor was there objection so as to preserve the issue. Defendant testified on direct examination that he had, indeed, been convicted previously of two felonies. Thus, defendant has failed to show that his absence from the courtroom at the time of the Sandoval ruling had any substantial effect upon his opportunity to defend (see, e.g., People v Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1).

Likewise without merit is defendant's argument that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury regarding the concept of "reasonable doubt." The court's explanation, inter alia, that a reasonable doubt "is a doubt for which a [juror] could give a reason if he or she were called upon to do so in the jury room" adequately conveyed the appropriate standard (see, e.g., People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).

We perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing sentence. The court duly reviewed all available sentencing data, including the circumstances of the instant case, the probation report, defendant's predicate felon status, and his prior criminal history (see, e.g., People v Junco, 43 A.D.2d 266, affd 35 N.Y.2d 419, cert denied 421 U.S. 951).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Jordan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JORDAN…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 267

Citing Cases

People v. Rose

Since we find, based upon that stipulation, that defendant was unequivocally absent, without waiver (cf.,…

People v. Harrison

, People v Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871; see, People v Reed, 168 A.D.2d 645, 646). Moreover, since the transcript…