People v. Bonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonds

99 A.D.2d 759, 471 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17129

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 759 (People v. Bonds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bonds, 99 A.D.2d 759, 471 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered July 9, 1981, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. As conceded by the People, the trial court failed to fully explain to the defendant the risks of self-representation (People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12; People v Harris, 85 AD2d 742, affd 58 NY2d 704 on opn at App Div). A valid waiver of defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to counsel requires a proper allocution (People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10). Contrary to the People’s assertion, the trial court’s failure to inform the defendant of the risks of self-representation is not subject to harmless error analysis (see People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264; People v Felder, 47 NY2d 287). Accordingly there must be a new trial. Titone, J. P., Laser, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered July 9, 1981, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. As conceded by the People, the trial court failed to fully explain to the defendant the risks of self-representation (People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12; People v Harris, 85 AD2d 742, affd 58 NY2d 704 on opn at App Div). A valid waiver of defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to counsel requires a proper allocution (People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10). Contrary to the People’s assertion, the trial court’s failure to inform the defendant of the risks of self-representation is not subject to harmless error analysis (see People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264; People v Felder, 47 NY2d 287). Accordingly there must be a new trial. Titone, J. P., Laser, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 759, 471 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonds-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack