From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Aug 12, 2020
186 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2018-06595 Ind. No. 5267/14

08-12-2020

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Felix RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the resentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

This matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing. The defendant's fundamental right to be "personally

present at the time sentence is pronounced" ( CPL 380.40[1] ; see People v. Rossborough, 27 N.Y.3d 485, 34 N.Y.S.3d 399, 54 N.E.3d 71 ) extends to resentencing or to the amendment of a sentence (see People v. Robinson, 111 A.D.3d 963, 964, 975 N.Y.S.2d 464 ; People v. Weekes, 28 A.D.3d 499, 500, 813 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). While a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at resentencing, this waiver must be expressly made (see People v. Stewart, 28 N.Y.3d 1091, 45 N.Y.S.3d 318, 68 N.E.3d 43 ). A "[w]aiver results from a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision" ( People v. Rossborough, 27 N.Y.3d at 488, 34 N.Y.S.3d 399, 54 N.E.3d 71 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the defendant was not produced at resentencing and the record is devoid of any indication that he expressly waived his right to be present. Thus, the Supreme Court's failure to have the defendant produced at the resentencing proceeding violated the defendant's fundamental right to be present at the time of sentence. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.

The defendant's contention that the resentence was excessive is academic in light of our determination. We note that the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ).

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Aug 12, 2020
186 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Felix Rodriguez…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Aug 12, 2020

Citations

186 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
126 N.Y.S.3d 913
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 4493

Citing Cases

People v. Umar

A defendant has a fundamental right to be "personally present at the time sentence is pronounced" ( CPL…

People v. Umar

Here, the defendant was not produced at sentencing on the convictions of assault in the first degree and…