Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered September 18, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 8 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
By failing to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself (see People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17, 364 N.Y.S.2d 837, 324 N.E.2d 322 [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 N.Y.3d 88, 106, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 [2004]; compare People v. Rodriguez, 46 A.D.3d 396, 397, 848 N.Y.S.2d 94 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 844, 859 N.Y.S.2d 402, 889 N.E.2d 89 [2008] ). Defendant'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 N.Y.3d 85, 88, 828 N.Y.S.2d 277, 861 N.E.2d 92 [2006]; People v. Payton, 45 N.Y.2d 300, 314, 408 N.Y.S.2d 395, 380 N.E.2d 224 [1978], revd. on other grounds, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 [1980]; People v. McClam, 297 A.D.2d 514, 514, 747 N.Y.S.2d 75 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 537, 752 N.Y.S.2d 598, 782 N.E.2d 576 [2002] ). Defendant never stated or indicated that, even without an adjournment, he still wanted to represent himself.
Defendant's challenges to isolated portions of the court's main and supplementary jury instructions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. When viewed in context, neither of the instructions at issue could have misled the jury as to the requisite burden of proof or the jury's function with regard to lesser included offenses (see People v. Umali, 10 N.Y.3d 417, 426-427, 859 N.Y.S.2d 104, 888 N.E.2d 1046 [2008] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 07, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)