People v Walker
Annotate this Case
People v Walker
2011 NY Slip Op 09165
Decided on December 20, 2011
Court of Appeals
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 20, 2011
No. 245 SSM 41
[*1]The People & c., Respondent,
v
Frederick E. Walker, Appellant.
Submitted by James S. Hinman, for appellant.
Submitted by Stephen X. O'Brien, for respondent.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order modified and case remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings, and as so modified, affirmed. We conclude that on this record defendant satisfied his burden of showing that a reconstruction hearing is necessary to determine whether he was present during the Sandoval hearing. Upon remittal, if it is determined that defendant was not present during the Sandoval hearing, a new trial must be ordered; if it is determined that defendant was present, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that result. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur. Judge Pigott took no part.
Decided December 20, 2011
Decided on December 20, 2011
No. 245 SSM 41
[*1]The People & c., Respondent,
v
Frederick E. Walker, Appellant.
Submitted by James S. Hinman, for appellant.
Submitted by Stephen X. O'Brien, for respondent.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order modified and case remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings, and as so modified, affirmed. We conclude that on this record defendant satisfied his burden of showing that a reconstruction hearing is necessary to determine whether he was present during the Sandoval hearing. Upon remittal, if it is determined that defendant was not present during the Sandoval hearing, a new trial must be ordered; if it is determined that defendant was present, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that result. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur. Judge Pigott took no part.
Decided December 20, 2011
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
