People v Farmer
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 13, 2011
County Court, Onondaga County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Douglas Farmer, Defendant.
10-1252
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, ESQ.
ONONDAGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BRIDGET S. THOMPSON, ESQ. OF COUNSEL
Joseph E. Fahey, J.
D E C I S I O N / O R D E R
The Defendant is charged by Indictment with the crimes of CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN THE THIRD DEGREE; CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN THE FIFTH DEGREE; and CRIMINALLY USING DRUG PARAPHERNALIA IN THE SECOND DEGREE (two counts).
The Defendant was arraigned in this Court on October 27, 2010, at which time he appeared with defense attorney, Edward W. Klein, Esq., and a plea of not guilty was entered.
On December 13, 2010, Defendant filed an omnibus motion and the People filed a Response on December 17, 2010.
On January 4, 2011, the Court ordered a hearing, pursuant to People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, concerning the suppression of evidence alleged to have unlawfully been improperly obtained from the Defendant's residence.
A summary report resulting from the in camera inquiry was provided to both counsel on April 12, 2011.
On February 17th and May 20th, 2011, a suppression hearing was conducted before this Court pursuant to CPL §710.60(4).
On June 14, 2011, this Court issued a Decision/Order denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence that was seized from the Defendant's apartment on [*2]July 28, 2010, which resulted in his arrest on the instant Indictment. On that date, trial was scheduled for October 11, 2011.
On July 6, 2011, defense counsel requested that the trial be adjourned until November 14, 2011.
On July 22, 2011, defense counsel and the Defendant informed this Court that the Defendant wished to discharge counsel and represent himself on the trial of this action. During that court appearance, the Court advised the Defendant of the perils of self-representation, reminded Defendant that he had one of the most experienced and capable criminal defense lawyers in Central New York, requested that Defendant think carefully about the matter and discuss it further with defense counsel. The proceedings were adjourned for one week, until July 29, 2011, to allow Defendant additional time to discuss this matter with defense counsel.
On July 29, 2011, the Defendant appeared with defense counsel before this Court and reaffirmed his desire to discharge counsel and represent himself. During that proceeding, the Court conducted a thorough and searching inquiry of the Defendant's capabilities and understanding of his right to pro se representation. During the course of that proceeding, the following colloquy occurred:
THE COURT:All right. You understand that in choosing to
represent yourself, you're not entitled to any
aid from an attorney throughout these proceed-
ings at all?
THE DEFENDANT:Yes.
THE COURT:And you understand that this includes both pretrial
proceedings and the trial itself, you understand
that?
THE DEFENDANT:Yes.
At the conclusion of those proceedings, the Court granted the Defendant's request that Mr. Klein be discharged and that he be permitted to represent himself.
Thereafter, on August 12, 2011, despite the fact that all pretrial omnibus motions and proceedings had been concluded, the Defendant filed a Request for a Bill of Particulars and Demand to Produce.
On August 22, 2011, the People responded to Defendant's discovery demands and Bill of Particulars.
On October 12, 2011, the Court scheduled the case to advise both the People and the Defendant that the trial would be conducted on October 24, 2011, due to the age of the case and because the Defendant was incarcerated. On that same date, the Court received a motion by the Defendant requesting appointment of stand-by counsel, permission to have a laptop computer, special access to the Justice Center Law Library, and a copy of the minutes of the proceeding on July 29, 2011. The Defendant additionally requested that trial be adjourned until March of 2012. [*3]
The law in New York is well settled that while a criminal defendant has a Constitutional right to be represented by counsel or to proceed pro se, the Defendant has no Constitutional right to the assistance of a lawyer while conducting a pro se defense. See People v Mirenda, 57 NY2d 261 (1982); People v Bedard, 265 AD2d, (Appellate Division 4th Dept.) (1999) and People v Adams, 61 AD3d 1419 (Appellate Division 4th Dept.) (2009). The Defendant was fully informed of this fact during the proceedings of July 29, 2011, and nevertheless chose to proceed pro se.
This Court lacks the authority to order the Sheriff of Onondaga County to
provide the defendant with a laptop computer or special access to the Justice Center library, since those issues are security concerns that are peculiarly within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Sheriff.
The Defendant's request for an adjournment of the trial proceedings until March of 2012 is similarly without merit. All pretrial discovery and motions that were required to be conducted pursuant to Article 240 of the CPL were completed prior to July 29, 2011, the date on which the Defendant's request to discharge counsel and proceed pro se was granted. Notwithstanding that, the Defendant has further filed discovery demands to which the People have responded. Unlike People v Norris, 190 AD2d 871 (Second Dept.) (1993), no fundamental right of the Defendant will be impacted by denial of such an adjournment. Indeed, on July 29, 2011, when the Defendant's request to discharge counsel and represent himself was granted, all proceedings pursuant to Article 240 of the CPL had been concluded and a trial date had been set.
Based on the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion that the Defendant's request for a further adjournment of the trial to March of 2012, is little more than a dilatory tactic designed to frustrate the orderly progression of these proceedings and further, such delay would impede the progress and management of other trial cases in this Part.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
DATED:October 13, 2011
Syracuse, NY
_________________________________
Honorable Joseph E. Fahey, 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.
