People v. Lewis
Decision Date | 04 February 2014 |
Citation | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00592,114 A.D.3d 402,980 N.Y.S.2d 389 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brandon LEWIS, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
114 A.D.3d 402
980 N.Y.S.2d 389
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00592
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Brandon LEWIS, Defendant–Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb. 4, 2014.
[980 N.Y.S.2d 390]
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Claudia Trupp of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered April 23, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, intimidating a witness in the third degree, bribing a witness, and tampering with a witness in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 9 1/3 to 14 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
The court deprived defendant of his constitutional rights when, rather than conducting the requisite “dispassionate inquiry,” it summarily denied his repeated requests to proceed pro se ( People v. Smith, 68 N.Y.2d 737, 738, 506 N.Y.S.2d 322, 497 N.E.2d 689 [1986],cert. denied479 U.S. 953, 107 S.Ct. 444, 93 L.Ed.2d 392 [1986] ).
[980 N.Y.S.2d 391]
A criminal defendant's right to represent himself is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. “[F]orcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so” ( Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 817, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 [1975] ). The only function of the trial court, in assessing a timely request to proceed pro se, is to ensure that the waiver was made intelligently and voluntarily ( see People v. Schoolfield, 196 A.D.2d 111, 115, 608 N.Y.S.2d 413 [1st Dept.1994], lv. denied83 N.Y.2d 915, 614 N.Y.S.2d 397, 637 N.E.2d 288 [1994] ). This requirement is not satisfied “simply by repeated judicial entreaties that a defendant persevere with the services of assigned counsel, or by judicial observations that a defendant's interests are probably better served through a lawyer's representation” ( People v. Smith, 92 N.Y.2d 516, 521, 683 N.Y.S.2d 164, 705 N.E.2d 1205 [1998] ).
Defendant's requests to proceed pro se were denied by the court without any inquiry whatsoever. At the Huntley hearing on February 18, 2010, after requesting a new attorney, defendant stated, “If I can't get reassignment of counsel, at least let me go pro se, represent myself,” explaining that for over three months counsel had failed to provide him with information about his case. The court, without asking a single question, immediately replied, “I don't think so.” When defendant asked, “Is it possible if I can go pro se?” the court responded, “Anything is possible, sir, but you clearly don't want to go pro se. You just want me to assign a new lawyer.”
Defendant then stated, “If I can't get a reassignment of counsel, I would like to go pro se.” He further explained that he wished to proceed pro se because his attorney “ha[d] no information about [his] case,” and “ha[d]n't asked [him] nothing about [his] case,” and “[didn't] know what [was] going on.” The court did not inquire further but merely recited the procedural history of the case and stated, “I presume you have gotten copies of your motions and of the response,” failing to understand “what else [he] want[ed] to know about [his]...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Chess
...pro se was not equivocal simply because it was "preceded by an unsuccessful request for new counsel" ( People v. Lewis, 114 A.D.3d 402, 404, 980 N.Y.S.2d 389 [1st Dept. 2014] ; see People v. Malone, 119 A.D.3d 1352, 1354, 989 N.Y.S.2d 218 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1003, 997 N.Y.......
-
People v. Nahshal
...v. Jenkins, 45 A.D.3d 864, 864–865, 846 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; People v. Carter, 299 A.D.2d 418, 419, 749 N.Y.S.2d 101 ; cf. People v. Lewis, 114 A.D.3d 402, 404, 980 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's ......
-
People v. Ball
...v. Paulin , 140 A.D.3d 985, 987, 33 N.Y.S.3d 459 ; People v. Malone , 119 A.D.3d 1352, 1354, 989 N.Y.S.2d 218 ; People v. Lewis , 114 A.D.3d 402, 404–405, 980 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). The trial court's extensive inquiry established the defendant's ability to represent himself and emphasized the dang......
-
People v. Paulin
...the circumstances, render the applications equivocal (see People v. Malone, 119 A.D.3d 1352, 1354, 989 N.Y.S.2d 218 ; People v. Lewis, 114 A.D.3d 402, 404, 980 N.Y.S.2d 389 ; cf. People v. Gillian, 8 N.Y.3d 85, 828 N.Y.S.2d 277, 861 N.E.2d 92 ). Rather, the defendant's repetitious, explicit......