From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coleman

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jul 17, 2019
174 A.D.3d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2015-10995 Ind. No. 353/14

07-17-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dawson COLEMAN, Appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Charity L. Brady of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP [Brett H. Ruber ], of counsel), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Charity L. Brady of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP [Brett H. Ruber ], of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John G. Ingram, J.), rendered October 8, 2015, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and violation of pedestrians' right-of-way in crosswalks, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dineen Riviezzo, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, at which the defendant represented himself, the defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and violation of pedestrians' right-of-way in crosswalks in connection with an incident that occurred on January 12, 2014.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). "[T]he appropriate standard for evaluating [a] weight of the evidence argument is the same, regardless of whether the factfinder was a judge or jury" ( People v. Rojas, 80 A.D.3d 782, 782, 915 N.Y.S.2d 602 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court conducted a searching inquiry of the defendant before concluding that his waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and allowing him to proceed pro se at trial (see People v. Crampe , 17 N.Y.3d 469, 482–483, 932 N.Y.S.2d 765, 957 N.E.2d 255 ; People v. Arroyo , 98 N.Y.2d 101, 103, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 ; People v. Slaughter , 78 N.Y.2d 485, 491, 577 N.Y.S.2d 206, 583 N.E.2d 919 ; People v. Rafikian , 98 A.D.3d 1139, 1139–1140, 951 N.Y.S.2d 226 ). There is no " ‘rigid formula’ " to be followed in such an inquiry, and the approach is a " ‘flexible’ " one ( People v. Providence , 2 N.Y.3d 579, 583, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632, quoting People v. Arroyo , 98 N.Y.2d at 104, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 ). Under the circumstances of this case, and given the defendant's age, education, and previous exposure to legal procedures (see People v. Arroyo , 98 N.Y.2d at 104, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 ; People v. Smith , 92 N.Y.2d 516, 520, 683 N.Y.S.2d 164, 705 N.E.2d 1205 ), the record sufficiently demonstrates that the defendant was " ‘aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel’ " ( People v. Providence , 2 N.Y.3d at 582, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632, quoting People v. Slaughter , 78 N.Y.2d at 492, 577 N.Y.S.2d 206, 583 N.E.2d 919 ; see People v. Crampe , 17 N.Y.3d at 473, 932 N.Y.S.2d 765, 957 N.E.2d 255 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

BALKIN, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Coleman

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jul 17, 2019
174 A.D.3d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Dawson Coleman…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jul 17, 2019

Citations

174 A.D.3d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
102 N.Y.S.3d 448
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5678