People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 08 July 1985
• Citation: 112 A.D.2d 259,491 N.Y.S.2d 706
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 706

491 N.Y.S.2d 706

112 A.D.2d 259

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 8, 1985.

Leonard H. Kaplan, Brooklyn (Carol Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Michael Gore and Steven Kessler, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, WEINSTEIN and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 15, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (14 counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of defendant's pretrial motion which sought the suppression of certain statements.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant challenges the propriety of the hearing court's determination allowing for the receipt into evidence of certain inculpatory statements made by him as well as a videotape wherein he confessed to having participated in the crimes of which he now stands convicted. Defendant maintains that suppression of this evidence was legally required since his indelible right to counsel had attached before the statements were elicited and since these statements were procured in the absence of counsel.

Under the law of this State, the indelible and nonwaivable right to counsel arises by reason of the commencement of formal criminal proceedings against a defendant (see, People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218, 424 N.Y.S.2d 892, 400 N.E.2d 1344; People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 412 N.Y.S.2d 874, 385 N.E.2d 612). "The right is peculiar to and dependent upon the existence of the particular proceeding" (see, People v. Ridgeway, 101 A.D.2d 555, 561, 476 N.Y.S.2d 940, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 952, 488 N.Y.S.2d 641, 477 N.E.2d 1095). A right to counsel has been recognized prior to the initiation of formal proceedings where there has been activity involving a defendant, which is "sufficiently 'judicial' in nature" (see, People v. Sugden, 35 N.Y.2d 453, 461, 363 N.Y.S.2d 923, 323 N.E.2d 169; People v. Coleman, 43 N.Y.2d 222, 225, 401 N.Y.S.2d 57, 371 N.E.2d 819). The right to counsel for activity which precedes the commencement of formal proceedings may, however, be waived in the absence of counsel, so long as the waiver is voluntarily and intelligently made (see, People v. Smith, 62 N.Y.2d 306, 314, 476 N.Y.S.2d 797, 465 N.E.2d 336; People v. Morton, 104 A.D.2d 569, 479 N.Y.S.2d 275).

On June 4, 1982, defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police at LaGuardia Airport, after successfully eluding the police at a stake-out which occurred seven days before, and which resulted in the apprehension of three of his codefendants. Defendant was arrested and was advised of his Miranda rights while on board a plane. He was subsequently transported to a police precinct, in the company of his father, and was again administered his rights. Each time the police inquired whether defendant was willing to make a statement without the presence of an attorney, defendant responded affirmatively. Although felony complaints had already been filed against the three apprehended codefendants and although the three had already been arraigned at the...