People v. Beames
| Decision Date | 06 June 1991 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis A. BEAMES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael C. Lynch, Albany, for appellant.
Robert M. Winn, Dist. Atty., Hudson Falls, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and LEVINE, MERCURE, CREW and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), rendered June 30, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.
Defendant was indicted by a Grand Jury for the crimes of attempted robbery in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. Following a Huntley hearing, County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress an inculpatory statement. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 5 to 10 years. On appeal to this court, judgment was reversed, the motion to suppress defendant's statement was granted and the matter was remitted to County Court for further proceedings on the indictment (149 A.D.2d 817, 540 N.Y.S.2d 25). Defendant, while being represented by assigned counsel, then moved pro se for dismissal of the indictment upon the ground, inter alia, that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. County Court declined to consider the motion unless defendant agreed to appear pro se or his assigned counsel adopted the motion as his own. Assigned counsel declined to submit the motion on defendant's behalf. Thereafter, defendant again pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and, pursuant to plea negotiations, was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.
On this appeal defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in refusing to entertain the pro se motion and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. It is clear that a defendant has no right to a hybrid form of representation and it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant that type of representation in this case (see, People v. Garcia, 69 N.Y.2d 903, 516 N.Y.S.2d 194, 508 N.E.2d 929). County Court painstakingly advised defendant as to the options available to him and defendant opted to continue with his assigned counsel (see, id.).
Defendant asserts that assigned counsel provided him ineffective representation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rivera
...aware that it is a too common practice of represented defendants to make pro se motions. However, these cases: People v. Beames, 174 A.D.2d 775, 570 N.Y.S.2d 721 (3d Dept., 1991); People v. Pitcher, 182 A.D.2d 878, 581 N.Y.S.2d 908 (3d Dept., 1992); People v. Smith, 162 A.D.2d 734, 557 N.Y.......
-
People v. Smith
...counsel who declined to adopt the pro se motion as her own (see People v. Pitcher , 182 A.D.2d 878, 581 N.Y.S.2d 908 ; People v. Beames , 174 A.D.2d 775, 570 N.Y.S.2d 721 ). Critically, then-assigned counsel stated that only 31 days of delay were chargeable to the People. We further agree w......
- People v. Haddock
-
People v. Whitehurst, 3
...the subsequent suppression of evidence presented to a Grand Jury does not impair the validity of the indictment (see, People v Beames, 174 A.D.2d 775, 776, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d Next, relying on People v Pelchat (62 N.Y.2d 97), defendant argues that he is entitled to challenge the indictment ......