People v Agard
2013 NY Slip Op 04888 [107 AD3d 613]
June 27, 2013
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 31, 2013


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Kenith Agard, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Susan H. Salomonof counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian R. Pouliot of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered May25, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and third degrees,and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 12 yearsand 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application tosubstitute new counsel after giving him repeated opportunities to explain why he wanteda different lawyer (see People vPorto, 16 NY3d 93, 100 [2010]). Defendant was not prevented from explainingwhy he wanted a new lawyer (compare e.g. People v Branham, 59 AD3d 244 [1st Dept2009]). On the contrary, the court considered and rejected defendant's explanation. Atmost, defendant's allegations evinced disagreements with counsel over strategy on theeve of trial, which were not sufficient grounds for substitution (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d507, 510-511 [2004]).

The court also properly responded to defendant's motion to proceed pro se. Therecord belies his contention that the court coerced him to withdraw his application, andinstead demonstrates that the court fulfilled its obligation to undertake a "searchinginquiry" to ascertain whether defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was knowing,voluntary and intelligent, and to confirm that defendant was "aware of the dangers anddisadvantages of proceeding without counsel" (People v Crampe, 17 NY3d 469,481 [2011]; People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 104 [2002]). The court's inquiryinto the extent of defendant's knowledge of criminal law and [*2]procedure properly served to warn defendant that his lackof knowledge, relative to that of his attorney, could be detrimental if he chose to waivehis right to counsel (see Peoplev Sealy, 102 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J.,Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.