People v Y.A.
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 30, 2006
Criminal Court, Kings County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Y.A., Defendant.
2005KN06X0XX
Eileen N. Nadelson, J.
Defendant was arraigned on September 30, 2005, and at arraignment was represented by counsel provided by the Legal Aid Society. Defendant was released on his own recognizance, and the complaint was converted into an information charging Defendant with possession of a controlled substance.
On February 2, 2006, Legal Aid was relieved of its representation of Defendant based on Defendant's assertion that he wished to continue pro se. The court appointed an attorney under the provisions of section 18(b) of the CPL to assist defendant as an advisor, someone to act as "stand-by" counsel in the event that termination of Defendant's self-representation became necessary. People v. Gordon, 179 Misc 2d 940, 688 NYS2d 380 (Queens County 1999). A hearing was held on April 25, 2006, to determine whether Defendant is capable of representing himself in the instant criminal matter.
At the outset, it must be noted that the right to represent one's self is deeply ingrained in the common law as well as in the New York State Constitution and the New York State Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). NY Const., art. I, sec. 6; CPL 170.10. However, this right is not absolute, but is subject to certain restrictions. People v. McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 364 NYS2d 873 (1974). As established in People v. McIntyre, 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.
To determine whether a defendant meets these established requirements, the court must make a "searching inquiry" into four areas of the defendant's background: age, education, occupation and previous exposure to legal procedures. Id., People v. Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 745 NYS2d 796 (2002). The purpose of this judicial inquiry is to determine whether the defendant has been made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that it is established that he or she knows what he or she is doing and that the choice is made with his or her eyes wide open. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). [*2]
The court notes that there is no "mandatory catechism" required, nor any prescribed formal colloquy mandated to be used to elicit responses from a defendant to determine his or her ability to proceed pro se. People v. Berger, 2 Misc 3d 46, 774 NYS2d 247 (2d Dept. 2003). All that is necessary is that the court delve into the defendant's background in the four areas indicated in the Arroyo case cited above and that it alerts the defendant to the dangers inherent in self-representation. People v. Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 780 NYS2d 552 (2004).
The court initiated its inquiry in the instant matter by explaining to Defendant the purpose of the hearing. At this point Defendant demanded that his "corpus delicti" be present as required by the Constitution, and he further demanded a "common law jury." Defendant also stated that "I am a divine sovereign being...being oppressed by territorial gangsters telling me I have this and I have that."[Tr. 4] Defendant then alleged that his "due process is being broken. You violated my due process." by having the hearing. [Tr. 5]
When the court indicated that it was about to ask Defendant certain questions to determine his ability to represent himself in court, Defendant responded by stating that "under my divine sovereign rights as a divine sovereign being any questions you ask me, I will object." [Tr. 6] When the court informed Defendant that the hearing is necessary to ascertain that his waiver of counsel is an informed waiver, Defendant said "the procedure is null and void to me." [T. 8]
The first line of questions posited by the court concerned Defendant's age, ability to understand the English language and his educational background. Defendant said that he was born on May 5, 1983, had graduated high school and had attended one year of college. Defendant never responded to the court's question regarding any treatment for a medical or mental problem, and Defendant's court-appointed legal advisor counseled him not to respond to any questions regarding a prior criminal record. [Tr. 8-11] Defendant stated that he is the president of his own record label company. [Tr. 10]
When questioned as to whether anyone forced or coerced him into requesting to represent himself, Defendant said "God is making sure this happens. The forefathers, you know, the Constitution. He told me he would do this." [Tr. 12-13] As to his awareness of the criminal charges he was facing, Defendant stated "from my knowledge territory gangsters charged me for possession of marijuana. But that is an intangible product in the penal law. It says something of possession had to be tangible. But marijuana is intangible. I want that for the record." [Tr. 13]
The court then proceeded to inquire as to Defendant's understanding of the judicial system. When asked to describe the function of the court, Defendant said "the function is to provide a forum. You supposed to provide a forum to have a court. There is supposed to be a corpus delicti. That way I am not ramming and raging over the person that is supposed to be hurt." [Tr. 14]. Defendant understood the function of a jury as follows:
Well a common law jury trial is a function of, you supposed to have your own peers.
Common law jury trial of our own peers. They can determine whether whatever
happened was, it so serious that I need to be in jail or I need some type of [*3]
rehabilitation. That is what the jury is there for. Actually the jury have more power
over the judge and everybody else. That is the real people. We are the real people.
Not those people. [Tr. 14]
As to the role of the prosecutor, Defendant described that function as "trying to get a sentence or somebody to plead. That is all he is there for. Actually from my knowledge, a bar. Actually he is a bar. How it's spelled, b-a-r. The Bar Association. He is there to bar me so that way I won't go and talk to you...to stop my constitutional rights. He is barring me from my divine constitutional rights that the forefathers fought for and many other brethren died for." [Tr. 15]
The court asked Defendant what experiences he has had that would enable him to conduct cross-examination of witnesses. Defendant averred that "I am standing on my own behalf to ask questions. I will get it from a divine source...I am letting you know I am ready for it.... I have guts. I'm an artist, yes." [Tr. 15-16] Defendant said that he had been a campaign manager for Charles Barron when Mr. Barron was running for mayor and therefore he knows how to ask questions, can read and understand people, and is of sound mind. [Tr. 16]
Defendant stated that he wished to waive his right to counsel because he has had ineffective counsel in the past. "In other words none of the counsel that have been appointed to me, they have not understood the case. They don't have enough time to review the case. Actually, every time I ask them I am {gives his name} they are like, we have not read nothing about you so we don't know." [Tr. 18] When asked if he would accept a competent and very diligent attorney, Defendant maintained that "I don't need an attorney. I am here on my divine sovereign rights. God sent me here on my own in the flesh. Why do I need someone to represent me?" [Tr. 18]
When alerted to the dangers of self-representation, Defendant said that, "as a divine sovereign right, all I need is an advisor. Someone that knows a little bit of the language of the law that will advise me when I'm in this process. That is all I need. An advisor, if not counsel. I just need an advisor. Someone when you guys say something I say listen, I don't understand, could you explain that." [Tr. 22] Defendant further stated that "I been on my own. My father is dead. My mother is dead. I am here by myself. Don't you see. I only have advisors here. I been on my own. You see that.... I am not scared of this. My mother been dead since I nine. My father died in 2003. I am on my own behalf. God sent me here. Can't you see this. I will not submit to none of this immorality jurisdiction. This is not common law. " [Tr. 24]. As for the risk of jail, Defendant said, "Jail. I been in prison for 300 years. I ain't been free yet. I am a black man. I been enslaved. I been transferred to so many places. I ain't free. That is what makes me free. A king. Divine sovereign." [Tr. 24-25]
When the court informed Defendant that if he were to represent himself he would be held to the same standards as counsel, Defendant objected, saying "I cannot represent myself as an attorney. I have no schooling of attorneys. So I am here.... It can't be the same legal standards." [*4][Tr. 26] When queried about his knowledge of legal language, Defendant consistently maintained that he did not understand the question and objected to the proceedings. [Tr. 28-30] Defendant asserted that all the proceedings were null and void under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. [Tr. 34]
Defendant said that as long as he has a jury of his peers, which he maintained means people from his own zip code, he would be all right in court. [Tr. 39]
Finally, the court again asked Defendant if he still wished to represent himself, to which he responded, "on my own behalf as a divine sovereign." [Tr. 41]
Based on the foregoing inquiry, the court cannot conclude that Defendant is capable of representing himself in the instant matter. Although it is clear that Defendant unequivocally wishes to proceed pro se, the court does not believe that he possesses sufficient knowledge of judicial proceedings to provide adequate self-representation. Also, based on Defendant's reactions to the instant hearing, the court is not satisfied that Defendant would not engage in conduct that would impede the orderly disposition of the case. Defendant is not a sophisticated businessman, People v. Berger, op cit., does not have an extensive prior exposure to the criminal justice system, People v. Whitted, 113 AD2d 454, 496 NYS2d 767 (2d Dept. 1985), and the court's inquiry into Defendant's background and understanding of the case and the judicial process did not elicit the types of responses that would make the court comfortable in granting Defendant's motion to act pro se. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court denies Defendant's motion in order to assure Defendant adequate representation at trial. The court shall appoint counsel to represent Defendant in this matter.
The court notes that these proceedings were conducted merely to determine whether Defendant is capable of representing himself at trial. The purpose of this proceeding was not to delve into defendant's ability to stand trial pursuant to the dictates of section 730.30 of the CPL.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: May 30, 2006 _____________________________
Eileen N. Nadelson, J.C.C.
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.
