People v. Robles, 86 N.Y.2d 764 (1995)
When a defendant is physically present with counsel at a Sandoval hearing, traditional trial court preservation rules apply, requiring the defendant to raise any objections, such as the need for an interpreter, to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.
Summary
Defendant Robles was convicted of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. He argued on appeal that his conviction should be overturned because he was constructively absent from his Sandoval hearing due to the lack of an interpreter, even though he was physically present with his lawyer and no interpreter was requested. The Court of Appeals held that because Robles was physically present with counsel and failed to request an interpreter or object to the hearing proceeding without one, he failed to preserve the issue for appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to traditional preservation rules when the defendant is physically present and represented by counsel.
Facts
Robles was charged with criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. He attended the Sandoval hearing with his lawyer, but no interpreter was present. Defense counsel did not request an interpreter or object to the hearing proceeding without one. Robles was subsequently convicted after a jury trial.
Procedural History
At the Appellate Division, Robles argued for the first time that the lack of an interpreter at his Sandoval hearing rendered him constructively absent, entitling him to a new trial. The Appellate Division initially affirmed his conviction, holding that the argument was unpreserved. However, upon reargument, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that Robles did not have to preserve the claim. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant who is physically present with counsel at a Sandoval hearing, but who fails to request an interpreter or object to the hearing proceeding without one, must preserve the issue for appeal.
Holding
Yes, because the plain language of CPL 260.20 and its purpose support the conclusion that traditional trial court preservation rules apply when a defendant is physically present with their lawyer.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the key issue was whether trial court preservation was required for the interpreter claim at the Sandoval hearing. CPL 260.20 grants a defendant the right to be “personally present during the trial of an indictment.” While the Court had previously held that this right extends to the Sandoval stage and that defendants need not preserve violations of this right when actually absent (citing People v. Dokes, 79 NY2d 656), Robles conceded that he and his lawyer were physically present at the hearing. The Court distinguished this case from situations where the defendant was actually absent or otherwise unable to understand the proceedings. The Court reasoned that maintaining customary preservation rules in cases where the defendant is physically present and represented by counsel is a more practical way to satisfy the underlying purposes of the statute and its related policies. As the Court noted, “We conclude that maintaining customary preservation rules in a case such as this is prudent and a more definite, practical way to fairly satisfy the underlying purposes of the statute and attendant policies (compare, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19).” The Court found that requiring preservation in these circumstances promotes fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.