People v. El

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. El

250 A.D.2d 395, 671 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5328

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

DecidedMay 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 395 (People v. El) 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. El, 250 A.D.2d 395, 671 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered April 3, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of as[396]*396sault in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a violent felony offender, to two prison terms of 5 to 15 years on the first-degree assault and second-degree weapon convictions, and two terms of 21/s to 7 years on the second-degree assault and third-degree weapon convictions, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court sufficiently apprised defendant of the risks and dangers of self-representation and thus properly granted his request to proceed pro se. The court specifically warned defendant that he would be bound by the rules of evidence and Penal Law, and would not receive any special treatment or explanations but would be held to the same standards as an attorney. The court advised him against self-representation and standby counsel remained throughout the trial to advise defendant (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775).

Defendant’s claim that the sentence was based on improper criteria is unpreserved and unsupported by the record, and we perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find that they do not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered April 3, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of as[396]*396sault in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a violent felony offender, to two prison terms of 5 to 15 years on the first-degree assault and second-degree weapon convictions, and two terms of 21/s to 7 years on the second-degree assault and third-degree weapon convictions, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court sufficiently apprised defendant of the risks and dangers of self-representation and thus properly granted his request to proceed pro se. The court specifically warned defendant that he would be bound by the rules of evidence and Penal Law, and would not receive any special treatment or explanations but would be held to the same standards as an attorney. The court advised him against self-representation and standby counsel remained throughout the trial to advise defendant (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775).

Defendant’s claim that the sentence was based on improper criteria is unpreserved and unsupported by the record, and we perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find that they do not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 395, 671 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-el-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack