People v. Crespo

• Citation: 40 N.Y.S.3d 423,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07396,144 A.D.3d 461
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond CRESPO, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 10 November 2016
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

144 A.D.3d 461
40 N.Y.S.3d 423
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07396

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Raymond CRESPO, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Nov. 10, 2016.

40 N.Y.S.3d 424

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Ben A. Schatz of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Stephen J. Kress of counsel), for respondent.

RENWICK, J.P., RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.

144 A.D.3d 461

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas A. Farber, J.), rendered December 19, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life and 3 ½ to 7 years, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Prior to the start of jury selection, defendant's counsel moved to withdraw, telling the trial court that defendant would no longer speak with him. The court denied the motion. During jury selection, defendant told the court that he did not want his lawyer representing him and that he wished to represent himself. The court responded that it was “too late to make that request,” but offered to reconsider the issue after jury selection was complete. Defendant reaffirmed that representing himself “is exactly what I want to do.” Shortly after, defendant again told the court that he wanted to represent himself, and the judge again denied the request as untimely. The court did not make any

40 N.Y.S.3d 425

inquiry into defendant's request to proceed pro se, even after the trial prosecutor asked the court to do so. Nor did the court revisit the issue after the jury was seated.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated his right to self-representation when it denied, without inquiry, his requests to proceed pro se. It is well-settled that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to forgo the advantages of

144 A.D.3d 462

counsel and represent himself or herself at trial (People v. Arroyo, 98 N.Y.2d 101, 103, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 [2002] ; People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 15, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322 [1974] ). “It is a ‘nearly universal conviction ... that forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so’ ” (Arroyo, 98 N.Y.2d at 103, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154, quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 817, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 [1975] ).

The right to self-representation, however, is not absolute, and is subject to several restrictions (McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d at 16–17, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322 ). Thus, “[a] defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to...