From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 9, 1991
172 A.D.2d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 9, 1991

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


On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed, since 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 by his absence, without waiver, from the Sandoval Hearing (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). In view of the fact that our examination of the transcript of the Sandoval Hearing does not clearly indicate whether the defendant was present, we hold the appeal in abeyance, and remand the matter to Criminal Term for a hearing on that issue.

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
Apr 9, 1991
172 A.D.2d 230 (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: Apr 9, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 728

Citing Cases

People v. Salda

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.). Unlike our recent decision in People v…

People v. Odiat

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.). Ordinarily, where a defendant claims…