People v. Ramsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramsey

201 A.D.2d 915, 610 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 915 (People v. Ramsey) 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. Ramsey, 201 A.D.2d 915, 610 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment in order to permit defendant to prepare for self-representation at the trial (see, People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271; People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17). Furthermore, the record shows that, after the court denied defendant’s request for an adjournment, defendant abandoned his application for leave to proceed pro se and consented to be represented by his previously assigned counsel at the trial (see, People v Grippo, 124 AD2d 985, 986).

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the court did not err in admitting the so-called shank into evidence. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the error, if any, is harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Attempted Escape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment in order to permit defendant to prepare for self-representation at the trial (see, People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271; People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17). Furthermore, the record shows that, after the court denied defendant’s request for an adjournment, defendant abandoned his application for leave to proceed pro se and consented to be represented by his previously assigned counsel at the trial (see, People v Grippo, 124 AD2d 985, 986).

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the court did not err in admitting the so-called shank into evidence. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the error, if any, is harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Attempted Escape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 915, 610 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramsey-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack