You are here: / / IN ORDER TO KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO...
, ,

IN ORDER TO KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED OF HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCING EXPOSURE IN YEARS; THE “SPEEDY TRIAL” TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOINDER OF A CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL IS CHARGED TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT YET BEEN ARRAIGNED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, affirming the Appellate Division, determined (1) in order to effectively waive the right to counsel, a defendant need not be informed of his maximum sentencing exposure in years, and (2) the pre-arraignment delay associated with the joinder for trial with a co-defendant is not chargeable to the People:

Defendant Anthony Blue challenges his criminal conviction for five counts of second-degree burglary. Blue argues that a criminal defendant cannot make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel unless the trial judge specifically apprises the defendant of his maximum sentencing exposure in years. Rather than imposing a bright-line rule such as this, we have said that a court must ensure a defendant is adequately warned of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation before allowing him to proceed pro se. A review of the record here confirms that Blue had such an understanding at the time he waived his right to counsel.

Blue also argues that his indictment should have been dismissed on statutory speedy-trial grounds. CPL 30.30 (4) (d), broadly speaking, excludes from the time chargeable to the People a reasonable period of delay when a defendant is joined for trial with a co-defendant. Blue contends this provision does not apply to pre-arraignment time, but the Appellate Division correctly concluded that it does. Thus the 57 days between indictment and arraignment chargeable to Blue’s co-defendant were also chargeable to Blue, even though he had not yet been arraigned. People v Blue, 2024 NY Slip Op 05175, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: A defendant can effectively waive the right to counsel without being informed of his maximum sentencing exposure in years.

Practice Point: Even though defendant had not yet been arraigned, the time associated with joining a co-defendant for trial was chargeable to the defendant.

 

You might also like
A JUROR WAS CONVINCED DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER HOME AND SO INFORMED THE JURY DURING DELIBERATIONS; THE JUROR WAS “GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED” AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (HSTPA) DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGE ACTIONS UNDER THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) COMMENCED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN ROBERTS (CT APP).
Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred
​ THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATIVE CODE PROVISION CRIMINALIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN RESTRAINTS WHICH RESTRICT AIR AND BLOOD FLOW IS VALID (CT APP). ​
TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD THE 22 YEARS OF POLICE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY (CT APP).
Intent to Rob Sufficiently Proven by Circumstantial Evidence
Work on Billboard Was “Alteration” within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and “Construction” within Meaning of Labor Law 241 (6)
FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT... UNDER THE FACTS, THE PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON...