People v. Ross, 67 N.Y.2d 321 (1986)

A defendant charged with a misdemeanor has a statutory right to counsel, and the trial court must take affirmative action to effectuate that right, regardless of whether the court intends to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

Summary

Defendant was arrested for driving with a revoked license, a misdemeanor, and various traffic infractions. The Legal Aid Society, initially assigned as counsel, withdrew due to a conflict. Defendant requested an adjournment to retain counsel, stating he could not afford one, but the Town Justice denied the request, indicating that because he did not intend to sentence the defendant to jail, no assigned counsel was necessary. The defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed the misdemeanor conviction, holding that the defendant was denied his statutory right to counsel because the trial court failed to take affirmative action to ensure his right to counsel on the misdemeanor charge, irrespective of the potential sentence.

Facts

Riverhead police investigated a parked car and discovered the license plates were registered to a different vehicle. The defendant approached and stated he owned the car, which had broken down. He was arrested and charged with driving an unregistered vehicle, a misdemeanor count of driving with a revoked license, and four traffic infractions. Legal Aid, initially assigned, withdrew due to a conflict. The defendant requested an adjournment to retain counsel, stating he could not afford one, but the court denied the request.

Procedural History

The Legal Aid Society withdrew from representation. The Town Justice denied the defendant’s request for an adjournment to obtain counsel. Defendant was convicted in the Justice Court. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to assigned counsel, regardless of the trial court’s intention not to impose a jail sentence.
2. Whether the trial court adequately protected the defendant’s right to counsel when it denied his request for an adjournment to obtain counsel.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Criminal Procedure Law provides broad statutory protection to all defendants accused of felonies and misdemeanors, without reference to the potential sentence.
2. No, because the court should have granted an adjournment so that the defendant’s eligibility for assigned counsel could be determined; its failure violated the prerequisites intended to preserve a defendant’s right to counsel.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that CPL 170.10 imposes a duty on trial judges to safeguard a defendant’s right to counsel at every stage of a criminal proceeding. The statute requires the court to assign counsel to indigent defendants charged with a felony or misdemeanor, if requested. The court found that when the defendant expressed reluctance to proceed pro se, he was entitled to the court’s affirmative action to effectuate his right to counsel on the misdemeanor charge. The court criticized the Town Justice’s use of