People v Biro (Carol)

[*1] People v Biro (Carol) 2006 NY Slip Op 51864(U) [13 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on September 25, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 25, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and LIPPMAN, JJ
2005-1776 OR CR.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

Carol K. Biro, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of New Windsor, Orange County (Richard W. Thorpe, J.), rendered September 27, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated.

Judgment reversed on the law and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.

While a defendant has a right to self-representation (CPL 170.10 [6]), a court must conduct a searching inquiry to be reasonably assured that the defendant appreciated the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel (People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101 [2002]; People v Kaltenbach, 60 NY2d 797
[1983]). Upon review of the record, it appears that the defendant was not apprised of said dangers and disadvantages. Moreover, the record fails to establish that the court made any inquiry into defendant's age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel (see Arroyo, 98 NY2d at 103-104). The court merely informed defendant of the rights he would be giving up as a consequence of pleading guilty. Thus, the court did not obtain an effective waiver of the right to counsel. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter remanded for all further proceedings.

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Lippman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: September 25, 2006