| People v Sealy |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00422 [102 AD3d 591] |
| January 29, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nathaniel Sealy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Bari L. Kamlet of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas J. Iacovetta, J., at waiver ofcounsel; David Stadtmauer, J., at nonjury trial and sentencing), rendered September 16,2008, convicting defendant of harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to anunconditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to counsel. In a thorough inquiry, thecourt explored defendant's background and fully warned him of the risks anddisadvantages of proceeding pro se (see People v Crampe, 17 NY3d 469,481-482 [2011]; People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775, 776 [1984]). The focus in aself-representation inquiry is not on how much the defendant knows about criminal lawand procedure, because ignorance does not preclude self-representation (see People vRyan, 82 NY2d 497, 507 [1993]). Instead, the principal focus is on warning adefendant that his or her lack of knowledge, relative to that of a lawyer, will bedetrimental if the defendant chooses to waive the right to counsel. Here, the colloquyamply satisfied that requirement. In any event, while proceeding pro se, defendantobtained an acquittal of the misdemeanor charge, as well as an unconditional dischargeon his harassment conviction. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse,Freedman and Richter, JJ.