From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Delaron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 15, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the evidence adduced at the reconstruction hearing showed that the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The Trial Justice was aware that the defendant had been involved with the criminal justice system before, and, upon the defendant's request to represent himself, the Trial Justice had warned him that he would be foolish to do so. Upon the defendant's insistence on proceeding pro se, the Trial Justice made a determination that the defendant was capable of so doing, but, in addition, directed the defendant's attorney to act as standby counsel throughout the trial.

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Delaron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Delaron

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TEAK DELARON, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 15, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Morrow

the defendant was aware of the drawbacks of self-representation (see People v. Vivenzio, 62 N.Y.2d 775, 776,…

People v. Morrow

The colloquy was sufficient to ensure that the defendant was aware of the drawbacks of self-representation…