People v. Tanner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tanner

67 A.D.3d 609, 888 N.Y.S.2d 410

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 609 (People v. Tanner) 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. Tanner, 67 A.D.3d 609, 888 N.Y.S.2d 410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered December 4, 2007, as amended January 14, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of seven counts each of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted defendant’s application to represent himself. The record, taken as a whole (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 583 [2004]), establishes that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The record does not support defendant’s assertions that his request to proceed pro se may have been equivocal or the product of mental infirmity.

Defendant’s claim that testimony concerning the contents of an erased videotape violated the best evidence rule is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643-644 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered December 4, 2007, as amended January 14, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of seven counts each of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted defendant’s application to represent himself. The record, taken as a whole (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 583 [2004]), establishes that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The record does not support defendant’s assertions that his request to proceed pro se may have been equivocal or the product of mental infirmity.

Defendant’s claim that testimony concerning the contents of an erased videotape violated the best evidence rule is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643-644 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 609, 888 N.Y.S.2d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tanner-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack