People v. Lundquist
| Decision Date | 13 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 298/16,2018–00984 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Scott LUNDQUIST, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
180 A.D.3d 806
119 N.Y.S.3d 496
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Scott LUNDQUIST, Appellant.
2018–00984
Ind. No. 298/16
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—October 10, 2019
February 13, 2020
Karen G. Leslie, Riverhead, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered December 20, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a concurrent indeterminate term
of imprisonment of 25 years to life on each conviction.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on each conviction from a concurrent indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life to a concurrent indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree and burglary in the second degree in connection with a home invasion that occurred in Huntington Station on October 3, 2015.
The defendant contends that the County Court erred in denying his application to proceed pro se. "Under the New York and Federal Constitutions, a defendant has the right to proceed without counsel and to represent him or herself at trial, and the State may not force counsel upon a defendant" ( People v. Silburn , 31 N.Y.3d 144, 150, 74 N.Y.S.3d 781, 98 N.E.3d 696 ). However, "to best promote the orderly administration of justice and insulate convictions from claims of deprivation of fundamental fairness, the right to self-representation is necessarily a qualified right" ( People v. Arroyo , 98 N.Y.2d 101, 103, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 ; see People v. Nahshal , 146 A.D.3d 817, 818, 45 N.Y.S.3d 142 ). "A defendant in a criminal case may
invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues" ( People v. McIntyre , 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322 ).
Here, the County Court had the opportunity to observe the defendant's erratic and disruptive behavior throughout the lengthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Samuel
...a defiance of the processes of law and it disrupts the trial after all parties are assembled and ready to proceed" ( People v. Lundquist, 180 A.D.3d 806, 807, 119 N.Y.S.3d 496 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56 ). H......
-
People v. El Hor
...Supreme Court issued repeated warnings, which were ignored, as the defendant's disruptive behavior continued (see People v. Lundquist, 180 A.D.3d 806, 807, 119 N.Y.S.3d 496 ; People v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. Parker, 92 A.D.3d 807, 807, 938 N.Y.S.2d 444 ). ......
- People v. Yanez
-
People v. El Hor
...after the Supreme Court issued repeated warnings, which were ignored, as the defendant's disruptive behavior continued (see People v Lundquist, 180 A.D.3d 806, 807; People Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 805; People v Parker, 92 A.D.3d 807, 807). Further, the court afforded the defendant the opport......
-
Judicial conduct
...clauses of the New York State and Federal Constitutions. People v. Parker , 57 N.Y.2d 136, 440 N.E.2d 1313 (1982); People v. Lundquist , 180 A.D.3d 806, 119 N.Y.S.3d 496 (2d Dept. 2020). The right to be present, however, is waivable and a waiver may JUDICIAL CONDUCT §17:20 New York Objectio......
-
Judicial conduct
...clauses of the New York State and Federal Constitutions. People v. Parker , 57 N.Y.2d 136, 440 N.E.2d 1313 (1982); People v. Lundquist , 180 A.D.3d 806, 119 N.Y.S.3d 496 (2d Dept. 2020). he right to be present, however, is waivable and JUDICIAL CONDUCT §17:30 NEW YORK OBJECTIONS 17-6 a waiv......