COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT COUNSEL
After L.I.’s motion to represent himself was denied, and he was convicted of “gang assault in the first degree and assault in the first degree,” and sentenced 8 years in prison (as a second felony offender), an appeal ensued.
On its review of the record, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that a reversible error had been committed by the court below.
Apparently, the New York County Supreme Court denied L.I.’s request to proceed without counsel in the context of the criminal proceeding, believing that he lacked the requisite “familiarity” with the law.
But the AD1 thought such a motion should be granted where “"(1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues.” Because L.I. had met those factors, and given the constitutional implications of the motion’s denial, the AD1 reversed the underlying conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
They sure ganged up on the judge there ….
# # #
DECISION