People v. DeChiaro
| Decision Date | 08 May 1975 |
| Citation | 48 A.D.2d 54,367 N.Y.S.2d 353 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert J. DeCHIARO et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kohn, Bookstein & Karp, Albany (Gerald Alch, Boston, Mass., admitted pro hac vice), for appellants.
Donald J. Shanley, Special Prosecutor, Troy, for respondent.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, MAIN, LARKIN and REYNOLDS, JJ.
The testimony in this case is that the State Police, acting on intelligence that there would be a robbery or burglary at a hotel in Rensselaer County, staked out the premises. On the night of January 27, 1973 defendants, one of whom was armed, appeared at the hotel and entered through a window. They were caught inside the beams of police flashlights and recognized from pictures previously given to the police. Gunfire followed their refusal to heed State Police commands and the defendants escaped, only to be tracked through the deep snow and captured a few hours later.
Defendants were indicted for the crimes of burglary in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree.
Shortly after their arrest, defendant Lutz retained attorney E. Stewart Jones, Jr., and defendant DeChiaro retained attorney Thomas J. O'Connor, both of whom represented the defendants from February, 1973 until September, 1974. The conduct of the defense included participation in a preliminary hearing and motions for discovery and inspection, bills of particulars, suppression of identification testimony and suppression of alleged confessions. The attorneys further moved for dismissal of the indictment on the ground of selective prosecution, moved in this court for a change of venue, engaged in plea-bargaining and finally participated in the indentification hearing on the eve of trial.
During mid-August, 1974 defense counsel and the special prosecutor were advised by the Trial Judge that this case would be the first one reached at the September, 1974 Trial Term. The identification hearing, which was to be followed by the trial, commenced on September 9, 1974 and at its continuation on the morning of September 10, 1974 defendants discharged their respective counsel and announced their retention of a new firm. The sole reason given by defendant Lutz was an alleged conflict of interest because Mr. Jones had, since March, 1974, served as a special prosecutor in Rensselaer County. Defendant DeChiaro implied a conflict on the part of Mr. O'Connor because of his association with Mr. Jones. A motion for a continuance was denied.
The identification hearing concluded without further representation of the defendants as they would not proceed with their former attorneys. Upon the new attorney's appearance late the next afternoon the court directed that a notice of appearance be filed and a jury selected the following day, with the trial to commence on the following Monday, several days hence. On the new attorney's refusal to appear under such terms, the court advised the defendants to reconsider and go to trial with the original attorneys. Defendants refused and the court appointed the original attorneys. Both they and the defendants objcted to the appointments and ultimately the court advised the defendants that they were now without attorneys. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendants elected to proceed without counsel although during the voir dire they attempted to change their position. The trial commenced the next morning without defense counsel and the defendants, not participating in the trial, were convicted of the crimes for which they were indicted.
Defendants urge that the denial of their absolute right to counsel of their own choosing mandates reversal. We recognize that a defendant possesses the right to defend in person or by counsel of his own choosing (N.Y.Const., art. I, § 6; People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 364 N.Y.S.2d 848, 324 N.E.2d 322; People v. McLaughlin, 291 N.Y. 480, 53 N.E.2d 356).
A defendant has a right to counsel of his own choosing and, thus, the corollary right to change counsel at any moment from the time of retention of counsel up to and including the course of trial, for good cause. A defendant's right to counsel of his own choosing includes the right to change counsel at any time, without good cause, for any reason, or for no reason, if such change of counsel does not unreasonably interfere with the orderly course of the trial.
The record herein does not support the discharge of the attorneys for good cause. It appears that Mr. Jones, who had been retained by defendant Lutz...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rosado
...the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Hernandez, 122 A.D.2d 856, 505 N.Y.S.2d 908; People v. De Chiaro, 48 A.D.2d 54, 57, 367 N.Y.S.2d 353, cert denied 423 U.S. 894, 96 S.Ct. 194, 46 L.Ed.2d 126). In light of the fact that one Hispanic person was selected as a juro......
-
Bloom v. Clyne
...unlikely that respondent could be said to have abused his discretion in ordering these trials to proceed (see, e. g., People v. DeChiaro, 48 A.D.2d 54, 367 N.Y.S.2d 353, Cert. den. 423 U.S. 894, 96 S.Ct. 194, 46 L.Ed.2d Petition dismissed, without costs. ...
-
People v. Thomas
...last-minute dilatory tactics by the defendant (People v. Arroyave, supra, p. 273, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393, People v. De Chiaro, 48 A.D.2d 54, 56-57, 367 N.Y.S.2d 353, cert. denied 423 U.S. 894, 96 S.Ct. 194, 46 L.Ed.2d 126, see, United States v. Maxey, 2nd Cir., 498 F.2d 474, 478, ......
-
People v. Howard
...404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768), cannot, however, be used by a defendant to delay trial or obstruct its progress (People v. DeChiaro, 48 A.D.2d 54, 367 N.Y.S.2d 353, cert. den. 423 U.S. 894, 96 S.Ct. 194, 46 L.Ed.2d 126). When defendant's retained counsel appeared on the second trial date......