People v. Adams, 3819.
| Decision Date | 05 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | 3819. |
| Citation | 859 N.Y.S.2d 170,2008 NY Slip Op 05000,52 A.D.3d 243 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM ADAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
For the reasons stated in our decision on a prior appeal in this case (13 AD3d 316 [2004]), we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for an adjournment. We have considered and rejected defendant's constitutional claim in this regard.
The sentencing court erred by permitting defendant to represent himself at his ultimate sentencing proceeding, without making the proper inquiry to establish he understood the risks of self-representation (see People v Wardlaw, 6 NY3d 556, 558 [2006]). However, denial of the right to counsel at a particular proceeding does not invariably require the remedy of repetition of the tainted proceeding, or any other remedy (see id. at 559). Here, the court indicated prior to sentencing that it intended to impose the minimum sentence permitted by law, and it ultimately did so. Furthermore, by the time defendant chose to go pro se, his counsel had already sufficiently litigated issues relating to defendant's second felony offender status, and those issues were meritless in any event. Therefore, the tainted proceeding had no adverse impact (id.), and a remand for resentencing would serve no useful purpose.
Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation and the court's supplemental jury charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barksdale
...quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Johnson , 20 N.Y.3d 990, 991, 960 N.Y.S.2d 55, 983 N.E.2d 1239 [2013] ; People v. Adams , 52 A.D.3d 243, 243-244, 859 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 829, 868 N.Y.S.2d 604, 897 N.E.2d 1088 [2008] ).Contrary to defendant's contention......
-
People v. Shelton
...a verdict ( Sheltray, 244 A.D.2d at 854, 665 N.Y.S.2d 224;see People v. Adams, 13 A.D.3d 316, 317, 788 N.Y.S.2d 36,following remittal52 A.D.3d 243, 859 N.Y.S.2d 170,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 829, 868 N.Y.S.2d 604, 897 N.E.2d 1088;People v. Fai Cheung, 247 A.D.2d 405, 405, 667 N.Y.S.2d 929,lv. den......
-
People v. Rohadfox
...374, 375, 866 N.Y.S.2d 103 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 896, 873 N.Y.S.2d 272, 901 N.E.2d 766 [2008] ; see People v. Adams , 52 A.D.3d 243, 243–244, 859 N.Y.S.2d 170 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 829, 868 N.Y.S.2d 604, 897 N.E.2d 1088 [2008] ; cf. People v. Allen , 99 A.D.3......
-
People v. Allen
...and “[t]he sentencing court erred by permitting defendant to represent himself at his ultimate sentencing proceeding” ( People v. Adams, 52 A.D.3d 243, 243, 859 N.Y.S.2d 170,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 829, 868 N.Y.S.2d 604, 897 N.E.2d 1088). We conclude that the tainted proceeding had an adverse i......