Opinion
No. KA 06-02794.
February 1, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered April 21, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree.
FRANK J. NEBUSH, JR., PUBLIC DEFENDER, UTICA (ROBERT R. REITTINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Before: Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in summarily denying his request to proceed pro se. "A defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues" ( People v Mclntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17; see People v D'Antuono, 263 AD2d 968, 969). In determining that a defendant is acting knowingly and voluntarily, the court must "ensure that the defendant . . . is aware of the disadvantages and risks of waiving his right to counsel" ( People v Schoolfield, 196 AD2d 111, 115, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 858, lv denied 83 NY2d 915). Here, the record establishes that all three prongs of the test in Mclntyre were met ( see People v Ward, 205 AD2d 876, 877, lv denied 84 NY2d 873; cf. People v Lott, 23 AD3d 1088, 1089; see generally People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103-104).
We do not reach defendant's remaining contentions in light of our determination.