HOUGHTALING, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    905
    KA 10-02041
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JEFFREY HOUGHTALING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    (APPEAL NO. 1.)
    MULDOON & GETZ, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THOMAS E. MORAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (ERIC R. SCHIENER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Gerard J.
    Alonzo, Jr., J.), rendered January 27, 2005. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, as a
    felony, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the
    first degree, driving while ability impaired by drugs, as a felony,
    and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh
    degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from two judgments convicting him
    upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, felony driving while intoxicated
    (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (ii)]) and
    aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree
    (§ 511 [3]). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in
    conducting the trial in his absence. Even assuming, arguendo, that
    the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him
    that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear
    (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), we conclude that
    the court failed to inquire into defendant’s absence and to recite “on
    the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that
    defendant’s absence was deliberate” (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898,
    899, mot to amend remittitur granted 76 NY2d 746; see People v Dugan,
    210 AD2d 971, 972, lv denied 85 NY2d 972). In light of our conclusion
    that the court’s error requires reversal (see Dugan, 210 AD2d 971), we
    need not address defendant’s remaining contentions.
    Entered:    September 30, 2011                     Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 10-02041

Filed Date: 9/30/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016