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, etc., Respondent, v. Keith CAMPBELL, a/k/a Leroy Miller, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), both rendered February 22, 1999, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 13211/93, and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 13274/93, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.
The defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waivers of his right to appeal his convictions encompass his claim that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictments based on an unreasonable delay in sentencing (see, People v. Espinal, 277 A.D.2d 464, 715 N.Y.S.2d 906; People v. Jones, 255 A.D.2d 456, 683 N.Y.S.2d 540).
However, the defendant was deprived of his right to counsel at sentencing. Accordingly, his sentences must be vacated. Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved to relieve assigned counsel and requested a new attorney. Without making any inquiry into the defendant's ability to proceed pro se and his understanding of the risks in doing so, and in the absence of any request to represent himself, the court nevertheless relieved counsel and directed the defendant to proceed pro se. The defendant did not effectively waive his right to counsel and should not have been sentenced without an attorney (see, People v. Smith, 92 N.Y.2d 516, 683 N.Y.S.2d 164, 705 N.E.2d 1205; People v. Slaughter, 78 N.Y.2d 485, 577 N.Y.S.2d 206, 583 N.E.2d 919; People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133, cert. denied 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1024; People v. Maxime, 260 A.D.2d 406, 688 N.Y.S.2d 182).
In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the defendant's remaining contention.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 12, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)