Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charlie JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J. on dismissal motion; William Wetzel, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 2, 2000, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The record of the hearing conducted upon defendant's dismissal motion supports the court's finding that the People made reasonable efforts to have defendant testify before the Grand Jury (CPL 190.50[5][a]; People v. Evans, 79 N.Y.2d 407, 583 N.Y.S.2d 358, 592 N.E.2d 1362), and that his failure to do so resulted from defense counsel's delay in contacting the prosecutor concerning the scheduling of his appearance (see, People v. Edwards, 283 A.D.2d 219, 728 N.Y.S.2d 364; People v. Patterson, 189 A.D.2d 733, 593 N.Y.S.2d 8, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 975, 598 N.Y.S.2d 776, 615 N.E.2d 233).
Defendant's continued disruptive behavior in the courtroom, despite repeated warnings from the court, justified his exclusion from the trial and the consequential loss of his right to be present (see, People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343, 352 N.Y.S.2d 913, 308 N.E.2d 435). Neither defendant nor his attorney requested alternatives to exclusion or that measures be taken so that defendant could monitor the proceedings and consult with his attorney, with whom defendant had refused to communicate in any event. Accordingly, the issues have not been preserved for appellate review (cf., People v. Robles, 86 N.Y.2d 763, 631 N.Y.S.2d 131, 655 N.E.2d 172), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that under the circumstances, defendant was not deprived of his rights to confrontation or counsel (see, People v. Davis, 270 A.D.2d 162, 704 N.Y.S.2d 592, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 795, 711 N.Y.S.2d 163, 733 N.E.2d 235).
The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 20, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)