99 N.Y.2d 56 (2002)
A defendant cannot create an impossible situation for the court by refusing counsel and refusing to appear, then claim the court erred by not conducting a searching inquiry into self-representation.
Summary
The defendant, after having multiple assigned counsels relieved due to his complaints, refused to cooperate with his third attorney after an unfavorable verdict. At sentencing, he refused to enter the courtroom, claiming he had fired his attorney. The trial court proceeded with sentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendant created an impossible situation and could not now claim the court erred by not conducting a more thorough inquiry into self-representation. The Court reasoned that forcing counsel upon the defendant could have violated his rights under Faretta v. California.
Facts
During pretrial and trial, the defendant successfully requested, on two occasions, that his assigned counsel be relieved based on allegations of misfeasance or nonfeasance.
Following an unfavorable jury verdict, the defendant refused the services of his third assigned attorney for sentencing and refused to cooperate with him, despite the attorney’s competence.
At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the defendant refused to enter the courtroom, asserting that he had fired his attorney.
This occurred despite numerous requests and options proffered by the court, and the defendant had been informed that the Trial Judge intended to sentence him that day.
Procedural History
The trial court sentenced the defendant after he refused to appear and claimed to have fired his attorney.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial court must obtain right to counsel waivers in all circumstances, even when a defendant refuses to appear and refuses to cooperate with assigned counsel, or continue counsel against the defendant’s wishes.
Holding
No, because the sentencing court was presented with an impossible choice, and forcing counsel upon the defendant could have violated his rights under Faretta v. California.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by not conducting a searching inquiry into the implications of self-representation at sentencing.
The Court reasoned that the defendant created an impossible situation by refusing to appear in court while also demanding to rid himself of his third assigned attorney and represent himself.
The Court stated that had the court permitted counsel to continue to represent the defendant against his wishes, it might have violated his rights under Faretta v California, which recognizes a defendant’s right to self-representation.
The court noted, “Defendant cannot now rely upon the court’s inability to conduct a searching inquiry of defendant on the implications of self-representation at sentencing as a basis for vacating his sentence.”
The Court declined to impose an absolute rule requiring trial courts to obtain right-to-counsel waivers in all circumstances, emphasizing the specific facts of this case where the defendant’s actions created the dilemma.
The decision underscores the balance a trial court must strike between ensuring a defendant’s right to counsel and respecting their right to self-representation, particularly when a defendant’s conduct actively undermines the process. The court refused to allow the defendant to benefit from his own obstructionist behavior. The court also cited People v. Arroyo, 98 N.Y.2d 101.