You are here: / / DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT FOR SENTENCING ON A FELONY.

DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT FOR SENTENCING ON A FELONY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined a defendant may waive his right to be present for sentencing on a felony:

Defendant contends that County Court violated CPL 380.40 (1) by permitting him to waive his presence for sentencing and in pronouncing judgment in his absence. We disagree. CPL 380.40 provides, with limited exceptions, that the “defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced” (CPL 380.40 [1]). In situations where the sentence is to be pronounced for a misdemeanor or petty offense, a defendant may move to dispense with the personal presence requirement, and, with the court's permission, may be sentenced in absentia so long as the defendant executes a waiver “reciting the maximum sentence that may be imposed for the offense and stating that the defendant waives the right to be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced” (CPL 380.40 [2]). On its face, the statute provides for no similar exception for felony defendants. * * *

We conclude … that a defendant may expressly waive his right to be present. “[W]aiver results from a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision” … . Although CPL 380.40 protects a defendant's fundamental right to be present at sentencing … , that fundamental right may be waived just as many other fundamental rights may be similarly waived … . People v Rossborough, 2016 NY Slip Op 04250, CtApp 6-2-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT FOR SENTENCING ON A FELONY)/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT FOR SENTENCING ON A FELONY)/WAIVER (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT FOR SENTENCING ON A FELONY)

You might also like
CIVIL SERVICE LAW SECTION 71 ALLOWS THE CITY TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB AND IS UNABLE TO RETURN TO WORK AFTER A YEAR; THE PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATING SUCH AN EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REQUIREMENT OF THE TAYLOR LAW (CIVIL SERVICE LAW SECTION 200 ET SEQ) (CT APP).
USING ANOTHER’S CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER TO MAKE PURCHASES, WITHOUT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE CARD, SUPPORTS A GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION (CT APP).
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WAS MONITORING A WIRETAP WHEN DEFENDANT WAS OVERHEARD IN A CALL WHICH HAD ORIGINATED FROM THE COUNTY JAIL; LOCAL POLICE WERE ALERTED TO THE CONVERSATION AND THE POLICE OBTAINED THE RECORDING FROM THE JAIL; ALTHOUGH THE JAIL RECORDING WAS NOT AN “INTERCEPTED CONVERSATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 700.70, IT WAS EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM AN “INTERCEPTED CONVERSTION” TRIGGERING THE CPL 700.70 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CT APP). ​
Damage to Building Caused By Excavation Next Door Constituted “Vandalism”
County Court Was Not Required to Inquire Whether Defendant Wished to Seek New Counsel—Defendant’s Counsel of Choice Was Ill and County Court Ordered the Trial to Go Forward with Substitute Counsel (Selected by Defendant’s Counsel of Choice) After Denying Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment
Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES DO NOT ALLOW A SINGLE ADULT AND ADULT CHILD TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, ADULT CHILD ALLOWED TEMPORARY RESIDENCY TO CARE FOR HIS MOTHER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER STATUS UPON THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER (CT APP).
THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ONCE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN... LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF...