From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 2006
27 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2004-03190.

March 14, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered October 29, 2002, convicting him of the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Scott Brettschneider, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and John McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of his right to counsel and decision to proceed pro se was voluntarily and intelligently made. The Supreme Court repeatedly warned the defendant about the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se ( see People v. Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485), and the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant was fully aware of those dangers ( see People v. Providence, 2 NY3d 579).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request for a continuance to secure the presence of a witness. The defendant failed to show that the witness would offer material, noncumulative, and nonspeculative testimony ( see People v. Daniels, 128 AD2d 632).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05).


Summaries of

People v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 2006
27 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRIAN BAILEY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 14, 2006

Citations

27 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1813
810 N.Y.S.2d 365

Citing Cases

People v. Wingate

f stolen property in the fourth degree ( see Penal Law § 165.45). Viewing the evidence in the light most…