From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 2003
304 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

362

April 15, 2003.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered June 29, 2000, convicting him, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 9 years, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing as to whether defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to attend robing room conferences with prospective jurors.

Nisha M. Desai, for respondent.

Lisa Joy Robertson, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner, JJ.


Prior to the commencement of jury selection, the trial court stated in the robing room, in the absence of defendant, that: "I have been informed by Defense Counsel that his client has chosen to remain outside in the courtroom during the preliminary screening. Is that correct?" In response, defense counsel stated: "That's correct." Subsequently, the prospective jurors were questioned individually by the trial court and counsel in the robing room in the absence of defendant, and matters were explored that would require a defendant's presence or waiver thereof.

It is well settled that a defendant's waiver of his rights under People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247), to be present at certain sidebar conferences with prospective jurors may be inferred from the totality of the record, and all the inferences that may be drawn therefrom (People v. Keen, 94 N.Y.2d 533, 538; People v. Brown, 256 A.D.2d 92, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 967). On the record before us, it is unclear whether defendant had authorized his counsel to waive his Antommarchi rights before the parties entered the robing room and/or whether the trial court may have revisited the issue in an unrecorded colloquy. Accordingly, we remand the matter to Supreme Court to reconstruct the record as completely as possible to determine the circumstances of the waiver (see People v. Holliday, 241 A.D.2d 399, 400, appeal withdrawn 246 A.D.2d 954).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 2003
304 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Velez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JESSIE VELEZ…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 848

Citing Cases

People v. McAdams

This argument is unavailing. In our view, County Court's comment regarding defendant's right to be present at…

People v. Kelly

Thus, a violation of a defendant's right to be present for a court's response to a jury inquiry presents an…