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, etc., respondent, v. Deon Traylor, appellant.
Submitted-June 1, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered August 8, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly determined that the trial should proceed in his absence. A valid waiver of the right to be present at trial will be implied if the record reflects that the defendant is “ ‘aware that trial will proceed even though he or she fails to appear’ ” (People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y.2d 593, 599, quoting People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 141; see People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d 99, 104). Moreover, a defendant may forfeit the right to be present at trial by deliberately absenting himself from the proceedings, regardless of whether he or she was informed that the trial would proceed in his or her absence (see People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d at 104; see also People v. Brooks, 75 N.Y.2d 898, 899; People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444).
Here, the evidence adduced at a Parker hearing (see People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136) that defense counsel advised the defendant that the trial court would consider proceeding with the trial in his absence, and that the defendant thereafter failed to appear for trial, supported a finding that the defendant impliedly waived his right to be present at trial. In any event, the record supports the trial court's determination that the defendant's absences on the date set for trial, and on a second trial date scheduled after his failure to appear, were deliberate (see People v. Marshall, 35 AD3d 764, 764-765) and that, therefore, his conduct indicated “a defiance of the processes of law sufficient to effect a forfeiture” (People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d at 444; see People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d at 104).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
FISHER, J.P., LOTT, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
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: 2008-07860 (Ind.No. 42 /07)
Decided: June 22, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)