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. DANHAILE R. REID, JR., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[3] ), defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present at all material stages of his trial when a Sandoval hearing was conducted in his absence. We reject that contention. Although it is undisputed that defendant was not present at a pretrial conference at which Sandoval issues were discussed, the record establishes that Supreme Court declined to make a Sandoval ruling at that time because it did not know whether defendant would admit to the allegations of a special information concerning a robbery conviction in 1993. Even assuming, arguendo, that discussions at the pretrial conference with respect to Sandoval issues constituted a Sandoval hearing, we note that the record further establishes that, immediately prior to trial, the court conducted a de novo Sandoval hearing at which defendant was present, and defendant stated at that time that he would admit to the aforementioned allegations of the special information. The court then provided defendant a meaningful opportunity to argue his position with respect to the Sandoval issues before the court, including those raised by defendant in a submission to the court after the pretrial conference (see generally People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118, 123). We conclude that, because the court did not issue a Sandoval ruling at the pretrial conference, and “[b]ecause defendant was afforded an opportunity to participate at [a] de novo Sandoval hearing, reversal is not required” (People v. Bartell, 234 A.D.2d 956, 956, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 983; see People v. Lynch, 216 A.D.2d 929, 929, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 904; cf. People v. Monclavo, 87 N.Y.2d 1029, 1030–1031).
Defendant further contends that he was convicted of an unindicted crime because the trial testimony revealed a second “physical injury causing act” that had not been presented to the grand jury. “Because defendant's right to be tried and convicted of only those crimes charged in the indictment is fundamental and nonwaivable, we reach th[at] issue despite the fact that it is unpreserved” (People v. McNab, 167 A.D.2d 858, 858). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention inasmuch as we conclude that defendant's actions constituted “a single, uninterrupted assault rather than a series of distinct criminal acts” (People v. Snyder, 100 AD3d 1367, 1367, lv denied 21 NY3d 1010; see People v. James, 114 AD3d 1202, 1205; see also People v. Alonzo, 16 NY3d 267, 270).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 09–02212
Decided: May 02, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)