People v. Rainey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rainey

240 A.D.2d 682, 659 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6782

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

DecidedJune 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 682 (People v. Rainey) 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. Rainey, 240 A.D.2d 682, 659 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester [683]*683County (Cirigliano, J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself. The exercise of this right requires an unequivocal request (see, People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17), which was lacking in this case. A review of the defendant’s motion reveals that it was actually a motion to relieve his trial counsel and not a motion to proceed pro se. As such, the defendant’s motion "appears to be based on his disapproval of counsel rather than constituting an unequivocal 'knowing and voluntary election to forego the benefit of an attorney and proceed pro se’ ” (People v Jones, 187 AD2d 750, 751, quoting People v Hacker, 167 AD2d 729, 730).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The remaining contentions in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, 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 County Court, Westchester [683]*683County (Cirigliano, J.), rendered November 17, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself. The exercise of this right requires an unequivocal request (see, People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17), which was lacking in this case. A review of the defendant’s motion reveals that it was actually a motion to relieve his trial counsel and not a motion to proceed pro se. As such, the defendant’s motion "appears to be based on his disapproval of counsel rather than constituting an unequivocal 'knowing and voluntary election to forego the benefit of an attorney and proceed pro se’ ” (People v Jones, 187 AD2d 750, 751, quoting People v Hacker, 167 AD2d 729, 730).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The remaining contentions in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 682, 659 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rainey-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack