Legal Opinion

People v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 4, 1994PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion, made at the time of trial, for an adjournment for 30 days to retain new counsel (see, People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271). Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently relinquished his right to be present at trial (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 349-351, cert *882denied 423 US 999). We reject the argument of defendant that his waiver was not voluntary because the court denied his motion for an adjournment. Defendant’s remedy to correct any perceived erroneous ruling is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. ArroyaveNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. People v. EppsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. Segatol-IslamiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  2. People v. Segatol-IslamiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  3. SEGATOL-ISLAMI, MARY, PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API