PEOPLE v. GEORGE (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William M. Harrington, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the trial to proceed in his absence.  “A defendant's right to be present at a criminal trial is encompassed within the confrontation clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions” (People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 139;  see People v. Samuel, 208 AD3d 1261, 1262).  However, a defendant may “forfeit that right by deliberately absenting himself [or herself] from the proceedings” (People v. Pierotti, 208 AD3d 1254, 1254 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 443–444).  “When a defendant is absent from the courtroom after [a] trial has begun, the court should inquire and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant's absence was deliberate before proceeding in the defendant's absence” (People v. Williams, 147 AD3d 983, 984;  see People v. Brooks, 75 N.Y.2d 898, 899).  Here, the record supports the court's determination, made after an inquiry, that the defendant's absence at the time his trial reconvened was deliberate and that his conduct “unambiguously indicate[d] a defiance of the processes of law” sufficient to effect a forfeiture of his right to be present (People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d at 444;  see People v. Williams, 147 AD3d at 984).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.