Court Opinion

ID: 9531483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:12:02.79231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:29.421378
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(concurring). I am unable to join the majority opinion, because I see no equivocation in defendant’s request to proceed pro se. It is true that his request was made in the alternative; he wanted to act as his own lawyer only if his request for a new lawyer was denied, as it was. But a request made in the alternative can still be unequivocal. Indeed, many if not most defendants who choose to represent themselves probably do so because they are displeased with the counsel the court appointed, and would be happy to proceed with a lawyer if they could get one who satisfied them. That does not mean that they cannot exercise their right under Faretta v California (422 US 806 [1975]) to be pro se.
Thus I conclude that the trial court erred when it refused defendant’s request to proceed pro se. I would vote to reverse defendant’s conviction, but for the fact that, after his request was denied, a conflict of interest led to the replacement of his lawyer by a new one — the result he had preferred all along. This fortuitous event effectively cured the trial court’s error in denying defendant’s Faretta request. If, having obtained the remedy he originally preferred, defendant still wanted to represent himself, he should have said so.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur with Judge Pigott; Judge Smith concurs in result in a separate opinion.
Order affirmed.