[DOWNLOAD] "People State New York v. Earl T. Brown" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People State New York v. Earl T. Brown
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 29, 1993
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Following his
conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and pending his appeal of that conviction to this Court,
defendant moved for relief pursuant to People v Mitchell (189 A.D.2d 337, appeal dismissed sub nom. People v Walker, 81 N.Y.2d
1065; see, People v Odiat, N.Y.2d [decided Dec. 16, 1993]). Defendant sought reconstruction of the record to reflect the
fact that he had not been present during an unrecorded Sandoval conference in chambers that immediately preceded a Sandoval
proceeding that took place in court, on the record, in defendant's presence. Defendant did not request a hearing concerning
whether he was present during the initial conference because it was undisputed that he was not present, and he did not request
reconstruction of that conference because it was conceded that the recorded proceeding accurately reflected what had transpired
during the unrecorded conference. In a brief decision, the court determined: "The record does reflect that the in-court Sandoval
hearing was held on the record in the presence of the defendant wherein arguments were made by both counsel in the presence
of the defendant and the court made its decision on the record * * * No further hearing is necessary." It appears that the trial court denied defendant's reconstruction request based on its conclusion that a de novo Sandoval
inquiry had been conducted in defendant's presence (cf., People v Russell, 191 A.D.2d 1001, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1019; People
v Berger, 188 A.D.2d 1073, 1074, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 881). The court should have followed our directive in People v Mitchell
(supra) to reconstruct the record sufficiently to enable us to decide defendant's pending appeal, including his contention
that his right to be present at all material stages of trial was violated when the initial Sandoval inquiry was conducted
in his absence (see, People v Odiat, supra; People v Favor, N.Y.2d [decided Oct. 19, 1993]; People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d
656). The trial court was not asked to pass on the merits of defendant's Dokes argument, but merely to reconstruct the record
to the extent necessary to allow defendant to assert that argument on appeal and to allow this Court to decide it (People
v Mitchell, supra; see, People v Odiat, supra). We thus modify the order by reconstructing the record to show that defendant
was not present at the initial Sandoval conference in chambers (cf., People v Odiat, supra). As the trial court determined,
there is no need for a hearing to reconstruct that conference because the parties and the court placed their recollection
of that conference on the record immediately thereafter, and that account is not challenged.