People v. Vivenzio, 62 N.Y.2d 775 (1984)

A defendant may waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se if the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, after being fully aware of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for factual determination, holding that the defendant could have knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Despite his lack of legal expertise and the potential rashness of his decision, the court emphasized that a defendant has the right to self-representation if the choice is made with open eyes. The trial court fulfilled its obligation to ensure the defendant understood the dangers and disadvantages before permitting him to proceed pro se. The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Facts

The defendant was an adult with prior involvement in the criminal justice system. He had a lawyer who advised against self-representation but remained available as standby counsel. The defendant insisted on representing himself at trial, despite his attorney’s advice.

Procedural History

The County Court permitted the defendant to proceed pro se. The Appellate Division reversed, presumably on the grounds that the waiver was not knowing or voluntary. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for determination of the facts and consideration of other issues not previously addressed.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel, thereby permitting him to proceed pro se at trial.

Holding

Yes, because the record supports a finding that the defendant was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and knowingly and voluntarily chose to proceed without counsel.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that a criminal defendant has the right to control their own defense. Quoting United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12, 15, the court stated that “respect for individual autonomy requires that he be allowed to go to jail under his own banner if he so desires and if he makes the choice ‘with eyes open’.” The court noted that its only obligation was to ensure that the defendant was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation before allowing him to proceed. The court found that the trial court fulfilled this obligation by determining that the defendant was an adult with prior criminal justice experience, that he had discussed the decision with his lawyer (who advised against it), and that the lawyer was available as standby counsel. The trial court warned the defendant about his lack of training and knowledge and informed him that he would be held to the same standards as an attorney. Despite these warnings, the defendant insisted on proceeding pro se. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was a sufficient showing that his decision was knowing and voluntary. The court cited Faretta v. California, 422 US 806, as the seminal case establishing the right to self-representation and the standards for waiving the right to counsel, and reiterated the importance of respecting the defendant’s autonomy in making this decision.