Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. LaVallegreen2 sentences2020Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that defendant did not make a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se, sufficient to express the "definitive commitment to self-representation" that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court ( People v LaValle , 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]). 2015Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that defendant did not make a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se, sufficient to express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court (see People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Gilliangreen2 sentences2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 | 3 | 3 |
People v. Paytongreen2 sentences2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 2015Defendant’s expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel and other statements and applications (see People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton, 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978], revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. McIntyregreen2 sentences2014Defendant failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]; People v Ramos, 35 AD3d 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), and thus did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” (People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]) that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (compare People v Lewis, 114 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2014] [defendant unequivocally requested self-representation following denial of request for new counsel]). 2014Defendant failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]; People v Ramos, 35 AD3d 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), and thus did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” (People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]) that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (compare People v Lewis, 114 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2014] [defendant unequivocally requested self-representation following denial of request for new counsel]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2008By failing to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]), defendant did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (see People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]; compare People v Rodriguez, 46 AD3d 396 , 397 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 844 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McClamgreen1 sentence2008Defendant’s expression of a desire to represent himself was linked to meritless requests for, among other things, an adjournment in order to prepare for such self-representation, which the court appropriately denied, whereupon defendant abandoned his request to proceed pro se (see People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton, 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978], revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v McClam, 297 AD2d 514, 514 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 537 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 2015Defendant’s expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel and other statements and applications (see People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton, 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978], revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]). | 3 | 2008–2020 |
People v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2014Defendant failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]; People v Ramos, 35 AD3d 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), and thus did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” (People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]) that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (compare People v Lewis, 114 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2014] [defendant unequivocally requested self-representation following denial of request for new counsel]). 2014Defendant failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]; People v Ramos, 35 AD3d 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), and thus did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” (People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]) that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (compare People v Lewis, 114 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2014] [defendant unequivocally requested self-representation following denial of request for new counsel]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2014Defendant failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]; People v Ramos, 35 AD3d 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), and thus did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” (People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]) that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (compare People v Lewis, 114 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2014] [defendant unequivocally requested self-representation following denial of request for new counsel]). 2014Defendant failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]; People v Ramos, 35 AD3d 247 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), and thus did not express the “definitive commitment to self-representation” (People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]) that would trigger the need for a full inquiry by the court as to whether it should permit him to proceed pro se (compare People v Lewis, 114 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2014] [defendant unequivocally requested self-representation following denial of request for new counsel]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Matthan
green
1 sentence2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Cornelius
green
1 sentence2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Lassiter
green
1 sentence2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Arpi
green
1 sentence2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Little
green
1 sentence2020Rather than being unequivocal, defendant's expression of a desire to represent himself came within the context of his complaints about his counsel ( see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People v Payton , 45 NY2d 300, 314 [1978] , revd on other grounds 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Little , 151 AD3d 531 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [*2][2017]).In any event, defendant abandoned his request by proceeding with the scheduled suppression hearing and subsequent trial without expressing any further desire to represent himself (see People v Gillian , 8 NY3d at 88 ; People v Berrian , 154 AD3d 48 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Munford v. Shaw
neutral
1 sentence1982Nor is the Yaklin-London concept confined to the First and Fourth Departments, for the Second Department has itself, at least inferentially, recognized the need for a full hearing as to all factors by emphasizing in Munford v Shaw ( 84 AD2d 810 ) that such a hearing, including the expert testimony of a psychologist, supported the custody order made in that case. 1 Moreover, the holding of such a hearing is mandated by subdivision 1 of section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law which provides that in any proceeding related to custody “the court must give * * * direction, between the parties, for | 1 | 1982–1982 |