People v. Colon
| Decision Date | 05 June 1997 |
| Citation | 90 N.Y.2d 824,660 N.Y.S.2d 377,682 N.E.2d 978 |
| Parties | , 682 N.E.2d 978 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Peter COLON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that Court for consideration of the facts (see, CPL 470.25[2][d]; 470.40[2][b] ).
At the end of the second round of jury selection, the parties had selected 11 jurors. When the trial court disapprovingly remarked that a new panel would have to be called for one more juror, the parties conferred and defense counsel decided to withdraw a peremptory challenge in order to seat the final juror. Defendant, though not personally objecting to the procedure, did complain that he wanted a different previously challenged juror empaneled. Defense counsel, nevertheless, informed the court that the selected juror was acceptable. At no time did defendant request a change of counsel.
After trial, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 160.15[3] ). The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that "it was error for the court to seat the previously-challenged juror over the defendant's express objection" (People v. Colon, 228 A.D.2d 449, 450, 644 N.Y.S.2d 57).
It is well established that a defendant, "having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case" such as "whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal" (People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, 478, 541 N.Y.S.2d 749, 539 N.E.2d 577; see, Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 3312-13, 77 L.Ed.2d 987). With respect to strategic and tactical decisions concerning the conduct of trials, by contrast, defendants are deemed to repose decision-making authority in their lawyers. The selection of particular jurors falls within the category of tactical decisions entrusted to counsel, and defendants do not retain a personal veto power over counsel's exercise of professional judgments (see, People v. Sprowal, 84 N.Y.2d 113, 119, 615 N.Y.S.2d 328, 638 N.E.2d 973; ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Defense Function, Standard 4-5.2[b] [3d ed 1993] ).
Therefore, the trial court committed no error by accepting defense counsel's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...(4) whether to appeal. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983); People v. Colon, 90 N.Y.2d 824, 660 N.Y.S.2d 377, 682 N.E.2d 978, 979 (N.Y.1997); People v. Davison, 292 Ill.App.3d 981, 227 Ill.Dec. 75, 686 N.E.2d 1231 (Ill.App.Ct.1997); See also Miss. R.ule......
-
People v. Clark
...and whether to take an appeal (see People v. Davis, 13 N.Y.3d 17, 30, 884 N.Y.S.2d 665, 912 N.E.2d 1044 ; People v. Colon, 90 N.Y.2d 824, 825–826, 660 N.Y.S.2d 377, 682 N.E.2d 978 ). Matters of strategy and tactics, such as whether to request the submission of lesser-included offenses for t......
-
People v. Davis
...`whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal'" (see People v. Colon, 90 N.Y.2d 824, 825-826, 660 N.Y.S.2d 377, 682 N.E.2d 978 [1997]). We hold that the decision whether to agree to JHO adjudication of a petty criminal case represents the s......
-
People v. Maffei, No. 25
...[Powell, J. concurring]; People v. Clark, 28 N.Y.3d 556, 563, 46 N.Y.S.3d 817, 69 N.E.3d 604 [2016] ; People v. Colon, 90 N.Y.2d 824, 826, 660 N.Y.S.2d 377, 682 N.E.2d 978 [1997] ; American Bar Association ("ABA") Standards for Criminal Justice, Defense Function, Standards 4–1.2[c], 4–7.3[a......