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. Shaheed Robinson, Defendant–Appellant.
Shaheed Robinson, appellant pro se.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar D. Cirigliano, J.), rendered July 14, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
Although defendant generally objected to the discharge of an absent sworn juror and requested an adjournment until the following day, he did not preserve his claim that the court failed to conduct a reasonably thorough inquiry when it replaced the juror (see People v. Knight, 84 AD3d 670, 671 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 860 [2011] ) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. After conducting a suitable inquiry and determining that the absent juror would not appear within two hours after the time that the trial was scheduled to resume, the court properly exercised its discretion in substituting an alternate juror (see CPL 270.35[2][a]; People v. Jeanty, 94 N.Y.2d 507 [2000] ). The juror had called in sick, and thereafter was not answering her home or cell phones. Under the circumstances, the court was not obligated to wait a full two hours before replacing the juror (see People v. Lopez, 18 AD3d 233, 234 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 807 [2005] ).
We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1489 6
Decided: April 21, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)