From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Keno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 2000
276 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

October 12, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 11, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and summarily holding defendant in criminal contempt, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 years and to a consecutive term of 30 days for contempt, unanimously affirmed.

Gina Mignola, for respondent.

Robert Budner, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.


The court's summary action in holding defendant in criminal contempt was proper where, moments after being sentenced, he told the court to "drop dead" (see, Judiciary Law §§ 750(A)(1), 755; 22 NYCRR 604.2[a];Matter of Roajas v. Recant, 249 A.D.2d 95). The proceeding against defendant was still in progress at the time of the contempt, particularly since defendant was in the process of being advised of his right to appeal. While defendant claims that he was denied the opportunity to make a statement in mitigation, the proper remedy for such a defect would be a remand for further proceedings (see, Matter of Roajas v. Recant, supra), and defendant has expressly declined to pursue such remedy on appeal.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

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


Summaries of

People v. Keno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 2000
276 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Keno

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JAMES KENO…

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

Date published: Oct 12, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 455

Citing Cases

In re Application of Brodeur v. Levitt

The court's power to summarily punish contempt is limited to conduct which disrupts or threatens to disrupt…