People v Boone

Annotate this Case
People v Boone 2012 NY Slip Op 01344 Decided on February 23, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 23, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny, JJ.
5685 523/09

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Michael Boone, Defendant-Appellant.




Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York
(Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant.
Michael Boone, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F.
Martin of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from the judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O. at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J. at suppression decision and dismissal motion; Maxwell Wiley, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered January 6, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 1 year, held in abeyance, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court for a new suppression hearing.

Upon reconsideration, we find that at the time defendant first waived his right to counsel before the suppression hearing, the court did not conduct the requisite "searching inquiry" as to whether he was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, nor did the court apprise defendant of the "singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication" (People v Wingate, 17 NY3d 469, 482 [2011]; see also People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579 [2004]). The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on October [*2]13, 2011 is hereby recalled and vacated (see M-5397 decided simultaneously herewith).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 23, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.