Legal Opinion
People v. Rodriguez
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 19, 2000PublishedCited by 93 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Ciparick, J.
In this criminal action, we are called upon to decide whether a trial court must consider the pro se speedy trial motions of a defendant represented by counsel. Because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, we refuse to prescribe any fixed rule for addressing pro se motions and conclude that the decision to entertain such motions lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. While we perceive no abuse of that discretion here, we nonetheless reverse defendant’s conviction on the ground that the concededly erroneous admission of a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- People v. FergusonNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- People v. ColemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- People v. MirendaNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- People v. SilburnCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 2018
- People v. HenriquezNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- People v. Yu-Jen ChangAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. WalkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- In re Mitchell WW.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.