From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Horton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 2002
296 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-06053, 2001-01559

Argued March 22, 2002.

July 8, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered May 31, 2000, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the third degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended sentence of the same court, imposed June 14, 2000, upon the conviction of attempted rape in the first degree.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jay L. Weiner of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Kristen Marcelle of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended sentence is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing on the conviction of attempted rape in the first degree, in accordance herewith.

We disagree with the defendant's contention that his conviction must be reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the trial. With respect to any prosecutorial misconduct that may have occurred during the trial, the misconduct did not substantially prejudice the defendant's trial (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401; People v. White, 196 A.D.2d 641).

As the People correctly concede on this appeal, the Supreme Court's failure to have the defendant produced for resentencing on his conviction of attempted rape in the first degree after it determined that the original sentence was unlawful, violated the defendant's statutory right to be present at the time sentence is pronounced (see CPL 380.40; People v. Crossland, 251 A.D.2d 509; People v. Brown, 155 A.D.2d 608; People v. Lucks, 91 A.D.2d 896, 897).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., McGINITY, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Horton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 2002
296 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Horton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. LEROY HORTON, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 8, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 720

Citing Cases

People v. Weekes

To the extent that our decision is inconsistent with that of the Third Department in People v. Van Deusen (…

People v. Robinson

On that date, the defendant was not present in the courtroom. The defendant's statutory right to be…