People v. Santos-Sosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santos-Sosa

203 A.D.2d 901, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4879

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 901 (People v. Santos-Sosa) 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. Santos-Sosa, 203 A.D.2d 901, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the court’s reasonable doubt instruction diminished the People’s burden of proof (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252). Viewing the charge as a whole, we conclude that the proper standard was conveyed to the jury (see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847).

Also without merit is the contention of defendant that the court improperly denied his request to proceed pro se. Defendant failed to request unequivocally to proceed pro se, and under the circumstances the court was justified in finding defendant’s behavior to be obstreperous. We conclude that defendant’s request was properly denied (see, People v Hacker, 167 AD2d 729, 730, lv denied 77 NY2d 906).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in the pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the court’s reasonable doubt instruction diminished the People’s burden of proof (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252). Viewing the charge as a whole, we conclude that the proper standard was conveyed to the jury (see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847).

Also without merit is the contention of defendant that the court improperly denied his request to proceed pro se. Defendant failed to request unequivocally to proceed pro se, and under the circumstances the court was justified in finding defendant’s behavior to be obstreperous. We conclude that defendant’s request was properly denied (see, People v Hacker, 167 AD2d 729, 730, lv denied 77 NY2d 906).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in the pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 901, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santos-sosa-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack