You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION...

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the DWI case for resentencing, determined defendant’s sentence should not have been changed after defendant left the courtroom. The court further found that the five-year conditional discharge to monitor the ignition interlock device exceeded the maximum allowed term (three years):

“[D]efendants have a fundamental right to be present at sentencing’ in the absence of a waiver” of that right … , and here defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing. Thus, as the People correctly concede, the court erred in changing the sentence of incarceration after defendant left the courtroom inasmuch as a resentencing to correct an error in a sentence “must be done in the defendant’s presence” … . People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
AN ENTRY IN THE CASE SUMMARY ALONE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF POINTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Court Properly Pierced the Corporate Veil/Criteria for Review of a Bench Trial and for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE INCORRECTLY PARAPHRASED THE JURY NOTE; CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
References to Counsel Did Not Constitute an Unequivocal Request for Counsel
CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
REFUSING TO TAKE A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT,... DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS...