From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 11, 1991
175 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

July 11, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William T. Martin, J.).


By order, entered April 9, 1991, we held this appeal in abeyance and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, as to whether defendant was present at the Sandoval Hearing ( 172 A.D.2d 230).

Following an investigation, by defense counsel and the office of the District Attorney, those parties filed with this Court, a stipulation, executed by them, dated June 11, 1991, reflecting that defendant was "absent from the courtroom during the Sandoval Hearing on March 22, 1988, which preceded his trial". Specifically, that stipulation states, in paragraph 1: "The `pen register' kept by the Department of Corrections in Bronx Supreme Court, which shows when any defendant is taken from the centrally located `pens' to a courtroom, shows that appellant was produced in court no earlier than 12:05 P.M. on March 22, 1988. The transcript of the Sandoval hearing makes clear that the hearing was concluded before noon on that date (pp. 7-8)."

Since we find, based upon that stipulation, that defendant was unequivocally absent, without waiver (cf., People v Jordan, 174 A.D.2d 490), from the Sandoval Hearing (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), we further find that his due process right to be personally present at all material stages of the trial (see, People v Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d 759, 760; CPL 260.20) was violated.

Accordingly we reverse, and remand for a new trial.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 11, 1991
175 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Rose

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SAMUEL ROSE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 11, 1991

Citations

175 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
572 N.Y.S.2d 300

Citing Cases

People v. Mitchell

The issue for immediate resolution is whether defendant has a remedy, either in anticipation of appeal (as in…

People v. Law

Although we find that the defendant's presence at the Sandoval hearing would not have been merely…