Before a Sex Offender Can Be Allowed to Represent Himself in a Mental Hygiene Law Section 10 Proceeding (to Determine Whether the Offender Should Be Civilly Confined), the Court Must Conduct the Same “Searching Inquiry” Required in Criminal and Certain Family Court Proceedings to Determine Whether the Offender Understands the Risks of Going Forward Without Counsel

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal the Second Department determined that the state had proven the offender was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement.  In so finding, the Second Department went through in detail the proof required to justify civil commitment of a sex offender.  That aspect of the opinion is not addressed here.  The offender represented himself in the civil commitment proceeding.  The Second Department determined that, just as in a criminal trial, before allowing an offender to proceed pro se, the court is required to engage in a “searching inquiry” to make sure the offender understands the consequences of representing himself.  Because no searching inquiry was done here, the Second Department determined the offender’s waiver of his right to counsel was ineffective:

…[A] respondent in a SOMTA (Sex Offender Management and Training Act [Mental Hygiene Law Section 10]) proceeding arguably faces an even more severe threat to his or her liberty than that faced by a criminal defendant. When successfully litigated by the State, such a proceeding can result in civil confinement, after a respondent is released from prison, which is involuntary and indefinite (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09), and can last the remainder of a respondent’s life. Therefore, we hold that a respondent in a SOMTA proceeding can effectively waive his or her statutory right to counsel only after the court conducts a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent. Applying these principles here, we find that the Supreme Court failed to secure an effective waiver of the appellant’s right to counsel.* * *

…[T]he appellant could not make an intelligent and voluntary choice to waive the assistance of counsel without being apprised, in any manner, of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … . Indeed, the fact that the appellant was alleged to be suffering from a mental abnormality requiring confinement to a mental institution made it all the more imperative that the Supreme Court adequately warn him of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and impress upon him the disadvantages of going to trial without the assistance of counsel. Notwithstanding the concerns voiced by the Assistant Attorney General, the Supreme Court erroneously insisted that it had fulfilled its obligations by merely placing on the record that the appellant did not want an attorney, that he understood he would represent himself, and that he could read and write.  Matter of State of New York v Raul L, 2014 NY Slip Op 04019, 2nd Dept 6-4-14