| People v Little |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04795 [151 AD3d 531] |
| June 13, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Little, Appellant. |
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Matthew A.Wasserman of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Miriam R. Best, J. at initial requests forself-representation; Denis J. Boyle, J. at subsequent requests, jury trial and sentencing), renderedJanuary 17, 2014, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as asecond felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
There was no violation of defendant's right to represent himself. Rather than beingunequivocal, each of defendant's requests for self-representation "was made in the context of aclaim of dissatisfaction with counsel" (People v Scivolette, 40 AD3d 887, 887 [2d Dept 2007]). In anyevent, defendant abandoned his request to appear pro se (see People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; People vGraves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]; People v Hirschfeld, 282 AD2d 337, 339 [1stDept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 919 [2001], cert denied 534 US 1082 [2002]).There was no stage of the proceedings at which a court actually denied, rather than temporarilydeferred, a request by defendant for self-representation. Furthermore, after assigning the last in along series of attorneys, the trial court advised defendant that although he had the right torepresent himself, a lengthy colloquy with the court would be required, which the court wouldconduct at the next adjourned date two weeks later, but that in the meantime defendant shouldconfer with the new attorney to see if defendant might accept her services. The minutes of theensuing court appearance, as well as the next appearance, clearly establish that defendant wassatisfied with the new attorney and no longer wished to represent himself. The record fails tosupport defendant's present contention that, given the fact that two prior requests forself-representation had been deferred by the court, it would have been futile for defendant torenew his ultimate request on the date on which the court had promised to entertain it.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion, madeafter the prosecutor's summation. Any improprieties in the summation were sufficientlyaddressed by a curative instruction, which met with defendant's satisfaction, or were trivial andharmless (see People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lvdenied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. During therobbery, two benefit cards belonging to defendant were [*2]left inthe victim's car, and defendant's explanation for the presence of his cards was highlyimplausible.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli,Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.