People v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perry

276 A.D.2d 808, 715 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 808 (People v. Perry) 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. Perry, 276 A.D.2d 808, 715 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered September 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent (see, People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520; People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21, cert denied 459 US 1178). The trial court undertook a sufficiently searching inquiry of the defendant to be reasonably certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel were impressed upon him (see, People v Smith, supra, at 520; People v Slaughter, supra, at 491; People v Sawyer, supra, at 21). Further, the trial court apprised the defendant of the risks and dangers of self-representation, and thus properly granted his request to proceed pro se (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775; People v El, 250 AD2d 395).

The defendant’s challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Magnano, 77 NY2d 941, affg 158 AD2d 979, cert denied [809]*809502 US 864; People v Garcia, 269 AD2d 464; People v Wheeler, 258 AD2d 542; People v Ospina, 192 AD2d 680). In any event, the written waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record demonstrate that the jury waiver was valid (see, People v Wheeler, supra; People v Ospina, supra).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered September 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent (see, People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520; People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 21, cert denied 459 US 1178). The trial court undertook a sufficiently searching inquiry of the defendant to be reasonably certain that the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel were impressed upon him (see, People v Smith, supra, at 520; People v Slaughter, supra, at 491; People v Sawyer, supra, at 21). Further, the trial court apprised the defendant of the risks and dangers of self-representation, and thus properly granted his request to proceed pro se (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775; People v El, 250 AD2d 395).

The defendant’s challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Magnano, 77 NY2d 941, affg 158 AD2d 979, cert denied [809]*809502 US 864; People v Garcia, 269 AD2d 464; People v Wheeler, 258 AD2d 542; People v Ospina, 192 AD2d 680). In any event, the written waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record demonstrate that the jury waiver was valid (see, People v Wheeler, supra; People v Ospina, supra).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 808, 715 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack