People v. Cumberbatch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cumberbatch

200 A.D.2d 376, 606 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 87

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 376 (People v. Cumberbatch) 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. Cumberbatch, 200 A.D.2d 376, 606 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered January 21, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Ineffective assistance of counsel is not established because an attorney, following his client’s instructions, failed to exercise any peremptory challenges. Since a defendant is entitled to participate in his own defense (see, People v Cabassa, 79 NY2d 722, cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, — US —, 113 S Ct 633), and even direct his attorney not to take any action whatever with regard to the defense (People v Smith, 68 NY2d 737, cert denied 479 US 953), a defendant is not deprived of competent legal representation because of his counsel’s compliance with his own directions.

The loss of a defendant’s right to be present at all proceedings of a case as a result of his repeated disruptive behavior is a forfeiture rather than a waiver (see, People v Corley, 67 NY2d 105, 109-110). Thus, defendant’s state of mind at the time of his removal from the courtroom was irrelevant, and the court was entitled to eject him solely on the basis of his admittedly repeated defiance of judicial mandates and regardless of whether he may have believed that the proceedings would be transmitted by radio into the pens.

While counsel did request a mistrial at the conclusion of the summation, the entirety of the summation clearly does not require reversal. Most of the disputed comments by the prosecutor were in response to the defense summation, and, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any statements by the Assistant District Attorney that may have been inappropriate, were harmless. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered January 21, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Ineffective assistance of counsel is not established because an attorney, following his client’s instructions, failed to exercise any peremptory challenges. Since a defendant is entitled to participate in his own defense (see, People v Cabassa, 79 NY2d 722, cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, — US —, 113 S Ct 633), and even direct his attorney not to take any action whatever with regard to the defense (People v Smith, 68 NY2d 737, cert denied 479 US 953), a defendant is not deprived of competent legal representation because of his counsel’s compliance with his own directions.

The loss of a defendant’s right to be present at all proceedings of a case as a result of his repeated disruptive behavior is a forfeiture rather than a waiver (see, People v Corley, 67 NY2d 105, 109-110). Thus, defendant’s state of mind at the time of his removal from the courtroom was irrelevant, and the court was entitled to eject him solely on the basis of his admittedly repeated defiance of judicial mandates and regardless of whether he may have believed that the proceedings would be transmitted by radio into the pens.

While counsel did request a mistrial at the conclusion of the summation, the entirety of the summation clearly does not require reversal. Most of the disputed comments by the prosecutor were in response to the defense summation, and, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any statements by the Assistant District Attorney that may have been inappropriate, were harmless. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 376, 606 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cumberbatch-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack