Opinion
2019–04438 Ind. No. 4208/14
08-02-2023
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Keston GEORGE, appellant.
Law Offices of Mitchell C. Elman, P.C., Garden City, NY (Brendan White of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and Sawyer White of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Mitchell C. Elman, P.C., Garden City, NY (Brendan White of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and Sawyer White of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, WILLIAM G. FORD, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William M. Harrington, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the trial to proceed in his absence. "A defendant's right to be present at a criminal trial is encompassed within the confrontation clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions" ( People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 139, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313 ; see People v. Samuel, 208 A.D.3d 1261, 1262, 174 N.Y.S.3d 758 ). However, a defendant may "forfeit that right by deliberately absenting himself [or herself] from the proceedings" ( People v. Pierotti, 208 A.D.3d 1254, 1254, 174 N.Y.S.3d 754 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 443–444, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56 ). "When a defendant is absent from the courtroom after [a] trial has begun, the court should inquire and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant's absence was deliberate before proceeding in the defendant's absence" ( People v. Williams, 147 A.D.3d 983, 984, 47 N.Y.S.3d 421 ; see People v. Brooks, 75 N.Y.2d 898, 899, 554 N.Y.S.2d 818, 553 N.E.2d 1328 ). Here, the record supports the court's determination, made after an inquiry, that the defendant's absence at the time his trial reconvened was deliberate and that his conduct "unambiguously indicate[d] a defiance of the processes of law" sufficient to effect a forfeiture of his right to be present ( People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d at 444, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56 ; see People v. Williams, 147 A.D.3d at 984, 47 N.Y.S.3d 421 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.