People v. Ramos
| Decision Date | 14 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | 5236/99.,9821.,9821A. |
| Citation | 35 A.D.3d 247,825 N.Y.S.2d 222,2006 NY Slip Op 09371 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALEX RAMOS, Also Known as ALBERT LUGO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The court did not deprive defendant of his right to represent himself. Defendant never made an unequivocal request to do so (see e.g. People v Kelly, 14 AD3d 390 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 832 [2005]). Although, at times, defendant used the expression "pro se," the context reveals that he was requesting permission to place matters on the record personally, rather than requesting to proceed pro se for all purposes (see People v Lewis, 253 AD2d 698 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 983 [1998]). In each instance, the court permitted him to speak, and the proceedings continued without incident. Even assuming that defendant's statements could be viewed as applications for permission to represent himself, defendant did nothing to call the court's attention to its failure to rule on such applications, and thus he abandoned the issue (see People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]; People v Brimage, 214 AD2d 454 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 732 [1995]; see also People v Hirschfeld, 282 AD2d 337, 338-339 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 919 [2001], cert denied 534 US 1082 [2002]).
Defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]), and the court properly denied his CPL 440.10 motion raising that issue. Nothing in the trial record, or in defendant's submissions on the motion, suggests that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial, or that his counsel should have requested a CPL article 730 examination or considered raising any type of psychiatric defense. Defendant predicates his arguments in this regard on the fact that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baez
...nothing to call the court's attention to its failure to rule on such application[ ], and thus he abandoned the issue" ( People v. Ramos, 35 A.D.3d 247, 247, 825 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 924, 926, 834 N.Y.S.2d 514, 516, 866 N.E.2d 460, 462 [2007]; see People v. Green......
-
Miller v. Warden of Sing Sing Corr. Facility, 13-cv-4576 (BMC)
...930 N.Y.S.2d 194, 196 (1st Dep't 2011) (pro se motions asserting constitutional Speedy Trial claims); People v. Ramos, 35 A.D.3d 247, 247, 825 N.Y.S.2d 222, 223 (1st Dep't 2006) (motion to proceed pro se); People v. Berry, 15 A.D.3d 233, 234, 788 N.Y.S.2d 849, 850 (1st Dep't 2005) (pro se s......
-
People v. Romanowski
...seek to proceed pro se ( People v. LaValle , 3 N.Y.3d 88, 106, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 [2004] ; see People v. Ramos , 35 A.D.3d 247, 247, 825 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 926, 834 N.Y.S.2d 516, 866 N.E.2d 462 [2007] ). Rather, defendant merely noted the existen......
-
People v. Richards
...request to represent himself ( see People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322 [1974];People v. Ramos, 35 A.D.3d 247, 825 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 924, 834 N.Y.S.2d 514, 866 N.E.2d 460 [2007] ), and thus did not express the “definitive com......