Ellenville man must be resentenced in larceny case, appeals court rules

A state appeals court has ruled that Ulster County Court Judge Donald A. Williams was wrong to sentence an Ellenville man who was not in the courtroom at the time and has ordered the case returned to court for resentencing.

Matthew Sassenscheid, 29, was convicted of grand larceny, a felony, in Ulster County Court on April 9, 2015, after admitting he stole from his cash register on more than 10 occasions while employed as a cashier. Sassenscheid admitted to giving the total amount, which exceeded $1,000, to his co-defendant, his husband,

who posed as a customer, according to a ruling handed down Thursday by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department.

Sassenscheid was arrested on Jan. 17, 2014, on U.S. Route 209 by state police at Wawarsing and charged with grand larceny.

At trial, the prosecution recommended a sentence of one to three years in prison, but the court said there would be a prison term of two to seven years if Sassenscheid was determined eligible for “shock incarceration,” or one to three if he was deemed ineligible for shock incarceration, according to the appellate ruling.

Sassenscheid was released on his own recognizance prior to sentencing, which initially was adjourned at his request.

He then failed to appear at the rescheduled sentencing on April 9, 2015, according to the appeals court, and was sentenced in absentia to 21/2 to seven years and ordered to pay $8,900 in restitution.

On appeal, Sassenscheid challenged the validity of his oral and written waiver of appeal, which the court denied.

But the appeals court ruled that “County Court abused its discretion in sentencing [Sassenscheid] in absentia,” citing People

v. Major, which states that “while a defendant’s right to be present at every material stage of a trial is well established, it may be waived. For there to be such a waiver, however, it must be shown that the defendant was informed of the right to be present at the proceedings and of the consequences for failing to appear, including the fact that the proceedings would go forward in his or her absence.”

Further, the court agreed with Sassenscheid that the County Court should not have sentenced him in absentia without first “inquiring into the reason for his absence.”