People v. Dickerson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dickerson

278 A.D.2d 81, 717 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 81 (People v. Dickerson) 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. Dickerson, 278 A.D.2d 81, 717 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

As the People commendably concede, when the court denied defendant’s request for new counsel and advised him that if he continued to reject the assistance of his assigned attorney he would be deemed to have waived his right to counsel, it was required to make the requisite “searching inquiry” to determine that defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se (see, People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12). Since no such inquiry was conducted by the court prior to requiring defendant to proceed pro se, a new trial is required. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

As the People commendably concede, when the court denied defendant’s request for new counsel and advised him that if he continued to reject the assistance of his assigned attorney he would be deemed to have waived his right to counsel, it was required to make the requisite “searching inquiry” to determine that defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se (see, People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12). Since no such inquiry was conducted by the court prior to requiring defendant to proceed pro se, a new trial is required. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 81, 717 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dickerson-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack