People v. Irick

• Decision Date: 15 March 2022
• Docket Number: 15505,Ind. No. 3869/15,Case No. 2019–4515
• Citation: 203 A.D.3d 517,163 N.Y.S.3d 530
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilbur IRICK, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

203 A.D.3d 517
163 N.Y.S.3d 530

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Wilbur IRICK, Defendant–Appellant.

15505
Ind. No. 3869/15
Case No. 2019–4515

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

ENTERED March 15, 2022

163 N.Y.S.3d 531

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (John L. Palmer of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.

Webber, J.P., Moulton, Kennedy, Mendez, Pitt, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J. at suppression hearing; James M. Burke, J. at pretrial calendar appearance; Abraham L. Clott, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered December 7, 2017, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court providently exercised its discretion in removing defendant from the courtroom during the suppression hearing based on defendant's disruptive behavior, including throwing himself on the floor (see

163 N.Y.S.3d 532

People v. Baldwin, 277 A.D.2d 134, 135, 717 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 780, 725 N.Y.S.2d 644, 749 N.E.2d 213 [2001] ). The totality of the court's interchanges with defendant were sufficient to warn him that if he persisted in his announced plan to prevent the hearing from going forward, the hearing would proceed in his absence.

Defendant was not deprived of his right to self-representation. At a calendar appearance a few days before trial, while expressing his dissatisfaction with his then third attorney, defendant mentioned his ability to represent himself, however, defendant did not make an unequivocal request to proceed pro se (see People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 106–107, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 [2004] ). Defendant's statements were overshadowed by his numerous complaints regarding his attorney (see People v. Jackson, 39 A.D.3d 394, 835 N.Y.S.2d 77 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 845, 840 N.Y.S.2d 772, 872 N.E.2d 885 [2007], cert denied 553 U.S. 1011, 128 S.Ct. 2068, 170 L.Ed.2d 805 [2008] ). Regardless, the...