People v. Kinard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kinard

67 A.D.3d 1331, 887 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1331 (People v. Kinard) 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. Kinard, 67 A.D.3d 1331, 887 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered April 6, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to proceed pro se. We reject that contention, inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant’s request was not unequivocal (see People v Bolden, 12 AD3d 1073 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 761 [2005]; see generally People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]). We further reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Garni and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered April 6, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to proceed pro se. We reject that contention, inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant’s request was not unequivocal (see People v Bolden, 12 AD3d 1073 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 761 [2005]; see generally People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]). We further reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Garni and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 1331, 887 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kinard-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack