People v. Jones, 79 A.D.3d 1665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
People v. Jones, 79 A.D.3d 1665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. McGloun (nyappdiv, 2021-07-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McGloun
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defendant's present contention that County Court erred in denying his pretrial request for a new attorney is therefore waived (see People v Jones, 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [4th Dept 2010]; People v Cobb, 72 AD3d 1565, 1567 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 803 [2010]; People v Hernandez, 62 AD3d 401, 401 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 797 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Thus, defendant waived the issue ( see People v Dukes , 122 AD3d 1370 , 1371 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 928 [2015]; People v Jones , 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [4th Dept 2010]; see also People v DeJesus , 240 AD2d 224, 224 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 903 [1997]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dukes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant withdrew his request for assignment of new counsel and thereby waived his present contention (see People v Jones, 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [2010]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dukes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant withdrew his request for assignment of new counsel and thereby waived his present contention (see People v Jones, 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as defendant withdrew his motion for a Huntley hearing concerning the statement that he made to the police, defendant waived his present contention that the court should have conducted a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of that statement (see generally People v Jones, 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as defendant withdrew his motion for a Huntley hearing concerning the statement that he made to the police, defendant waived his present contention that the court should have conducted a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of that statement (see generally People v Jones, 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Mitchell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
We nevertheless conclude that defendant explicitly waived that contention, which implicates a court's preliminary jurisdiction as opposed to a court's trial jurisdiction, inasmuch as defense counsel informed the court at a prior appearance that he did not intend to make a motion on the ground that the issuing court lacked such authority here ( cf. People v Jackson , 18 NY3d 738, 741 [2012]; see also CPL 1.20 [24-25]; People v Hickey , 40 NY2d 761, 762 [1976]; see generally People v Jones , 79 AD3d 1665, 1665 [4th Dept 2010]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Nakiesha Jones
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1665
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Shirley Troutman, J.), rendered November 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40), defendant contends that her right to counsel was impaired by County Court’s denial of her requests for substitution of counsel. The record establishes that defendant withdrew those requests and agreed to proceed with assigned counsel, and we thus conclude that she waived her present contention (see People v Hernandez, 62 AD3d 401 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 797 [2009]). Defendant also waived her present contention that the court erred in denying her the right to proceed pro se, inasmuch as the record establishes that she withdrew her request to represent herself (see People v McRae, 284 AD2d 657 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 921 [2001]). We reject the further contention of defendant that defense counsel was ineffective in requesting that the court submit lesser included offenses to the jury (see People v Taylor, 2 AD3d 1306, 1308 [2003]; see generally People v Colville, 79 AD3d 189, 201 [2010]), and in failing to seek dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50 and 210.40 (see generally People v Marcial, 41 AD3d 1308 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 878 [2007]). Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a missing evidence charge based upon the[*1666] failure of the People to preserve the stolen merchandise (see People v Pfahler, 179 AD2d 1062, 1063 [1992]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.