People v. Knatz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Knatz

124 A.D.2d 597, 507 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61910

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 597 (People v. Knatz) 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. Knatz, 124 A.D.2d 597, 507 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s argument that the adjournments requested by his various court-appointed attorneys should be charged to the People is completely without merit. Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was actually acting as his own counsel during this time, there is no indication in the record that he objected either to being assisted by counsel or to the adjournments in question.

Also without merit is the defendant’s claim that the court erred in permitting him to proceed pro se at trial. The defendant’s request to proceed pro se was unequivocal and timely asserted, his waiver of his right to counsel was given knowingly and intelligently, and his conduct during the trial was orderly and competent (see, People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17). Further, he was assisted throughout trial by a court-appointed attorney acting in the capacity of a legal advisor (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 22, cert denied 459 US 1178). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s argument that the adjournments requested by his various court-appointed attorneys should be charged to the People is completely without merit. Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was actually acting as his own counsel during this time, there is no indication in the record that he objected either to being assisted by counsel or to the adjournments in question.

Also without merit is the defendant’s claim that the court erred in permitting him to proceed pro se at trial. The defendant’s request to proceed pro se was unequivocal and timely asserted, his waiver of his right to counsel was given knowingly and intelligently, and his conduct during the trial was orderly and competent (see, People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17). Further, he was assisted throughout trial by a court-appointed attorney acting in the capacity of a legal advisor (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 22, cert denied 459 US 1178). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 597, 507 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-knatz-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack