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. DONALD J. GARDNER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the indictment is dismissed without prejudice to the People to file any appropriate charge.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50[3] ) as a lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the first degree (§ 215.51 [b][v] ), which was charged in the second count of the indictment. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in conducting the Sandoval hearing in his absence (see People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 267, rearg. denied 83 N.Y.2d 801; People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 660–662). The court's Sandoval ruling in this case was not wholly favorable to defendant, and thus “it cannot be said that defendant's presence at the hearing would have been superfluous” (People v. Morrison, 68 AD3d 1798, 1799). Contrary to the People's contention, although the court placed its Sandoval ruling on the record in defendant's presence the morning after the hearing, “[a] mere repetition or recitation in the defendant's presence of what has already been determined in [the defendant's] absence is insufficient compliance with the Sandoval rule” (People v. Monclavo, 87 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031; see People v. Potter, 114 AD3d 968, 968–969; Morrison, 68 AD3d at 1799). Inasmuch as defendant was acquitted of all counts charged in the indictment and was convicted of the lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the second degree, there is nothing remaining to support further criminal prosecution under the accusatory instrument (see People v. Gonzalez, 61 N.Y.2d 633, 635). Although defendant has already served his sentence, under the circumstances here, we dismiss the indictment without prejudice to the People to file any appropriate charge (see generally People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n; People v. Pallagi, 91 AD3d 1266, 1270).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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 13–00172
Decided: November 10, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)