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. Wesley WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), rendered July 9, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly permitted defendant to represent himself after a thorough colloquy at which the court ensured that defendant was aware of the disadvantages and risks of representing himself and of the important role of a lawyer (see People v. Arroyo, 98 N.Y.2d 101, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 [2002] ). Among other things, the court warned defendant of the difficulties he would face in cross-examining witnesses and introducing evidence, and that his counsel could do a better job because of his legal training and experience. To the extent that defendant is arguing on appeal that he could not have intelligently waived his right to counsel because he lacked education and legal experience, that argument is without merit. “Neither a defendant's lack of knowledge of legal principles and rules of law nor his [or her] unfamiliarity with courtroom procedure provides a proper basis for denying his [or her] request to proceed pro se” (People v. Providence, 308 A.D.2d 200, 201, 764 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2003], affd. 2 N.Y.3d 579, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632 [2004] [citations omitted] ). In any event, defendant had extensive experience with the criminal justice system. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
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: April 11, 2006
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)