People v. Love
Docket 238 KA 23-01812
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02554
- Docket
- 238 KA 23-01812
Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant upon his guilty plea to grand larceny in the third degree.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Warren Love’s conviction following his guilty plea to third-degree grand larceny. Love had asked to represent himself after complaining about communication with appointed counsel, but the court found his request equivocal because he sought self-representation only as an alternative to receiving new counsel. The court further held Love failed to preserve his claim that the plea was involuntary because he did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, and no exception to preservation applied. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's request to proceed pro se.
- Whether the defendant unequivocally waived the right to counsel.
- Whether the court erred in not inquiring into the voluntariness of the guilty plea after the defendant expressed dissatisfaction with counsel.
- Whether the defendant preserved his claim that the plea was involuntary.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied established New York law requiring an unequivocal, timely, and knowing request to proceed pro se. Love’s statements were conditional and made only as an alternative to obtaining new counsel, so they were equivocal and did not trigger the duty to conduct a full inquiry into self-representation. Regarding the plea voluntariness claim, Love failed to preserve the issue because he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment, and the court found no applicable exception to preservation.
Authorities Cited
- People v Davis240 AD3d 1162 (4th Dept 2025), lv denied 44 NY3d 1051 (2025)
- People v Lewis44 NY3d 350 (2025)
- People v McIntyre36 NY2d 10 (1974)
Parties
- Appellant
- Warren Love
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Douglas A. Randall
- Attorney
- Sarah S. Holt (Conflict Defender), Stephanie M. Stare (of counsel)
- Attorney
- Brian P. Green (District Attorney), Aeron Schwallie (of counsel)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-09-19
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult post-conviction counsel
Discuss with a lawyer whether there are any preserved or newly available grounds for vacating the plea, seeking resentencing, or filing a motion in the trial court.
- 2
Consider motion to withdraw plea if timely grounds exist
If factual or legal bases exist that were not previously raised, counsel can advise whether a motion to withdraw the plea or a CPL article 440 motion is appropriate and timely.
- 3
Evaluate appellate remedies
If there are procedural errors or constitutional issues not addressed, counsel can assess the viability of further appellate filings or a motion for reargument in accordance with court rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the conviction entered after the defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree grand larceny.
- Why was the request to represent himself denied?
- The court found the defendant’s statements about self-representation were conditional and equivocal—made only as an alternative to getting new counsel—so they did not amount to a clear request to proceed pro se.
- Does this decision mean the plea was fair?
- The court concluded the defendant did not preserve his claim that the plea was involuntary because he never moved to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, and no exception applied.
- Can the defendant appeal again?
- Further appeals may be limited; the decision affirmed the judgment on the issues raised. The defendant could consult counsel about any narrow grounds for postconviction relief or preservation-based arguments, but the appellate court rejected the claims presented.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Love - 2026 NY Slip Op 02554 People v Love 2026 NY Slip Op 02554 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v WARREN LOVE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 238 KA 23-01812 Present: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Smith, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ. SARAH S. HOLT, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (STEPHANIE M. STARE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AERON SCHWALLIE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered September 19, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]). We affirm. We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his request to proceed pro se. "It is well settled that a criminal defendant's constitutional right to counsel concomitantly includes the right to refuse appointed counsel" ( People v Davis , 240 AD3d 1162, 1163 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1051 [2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v McIntyre , 36 NY2d 10, 15 [1974]; see generally US Const Amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6). "In other words, there is a constitutional right 'to self-representation . . . and [a] corresponding—and sometimes competing—requirement that the state provide [a] defendant competent counsel to conduct [their] defense' " ( Davis , 240 AD3d at 1163, quoting People v Stone , 22 NY3d 520, 525 [2014]). "A defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues" ( McIntyre , 36 NY2d at 17). Here, defendant informed the court that he had been having communication issues with defense counsel, particularly with respect to certain motions that he wished to file, and stated that, "if we can't communicate I would rather represent myself." Although defendant briefly inquired whether he could proceed pro se specifically to file the motions, he immediately explained that he wanted "a competent lawyer" who would "communicate with [him]" in regard to those motions. The court responded that it would not relieve defense counsel at that time; rather, it would consider the issues raised in the motions filed by defense counsel and, thereafter, if defendant felt that "there [was] something . . . to be argued beyond that," the court would consider a new request to proceed pro se. No new request was made. Under these facts, we conclude that defendant did not unequivocally request to proceed pro se inasmuch as he "ask[ed] to proceed pro se [only] as an alternative to receiving new counsel," thereby seeking to "leverage his right of self-representation in an attempt to compel the court to appoint another lawyer" ( People v Lewis , 44 NY3d 350, 359 [2025]; see Davis , 240 AD3d at 1164). "A request to proceed pro se is equivocal where, as here, it does not reflect an affirmative desire for self-representation and instead shows that self-representation was reserved as a final, conditional resort" ( Davis , 240 AD3d at 1164 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Dixon , 42 NY3d 609, 618 [2024], cert denied — US —, 145 S Ct 1460 [2025]). Defendant's request consisted of "equivocal and hesitant statements about proceeding pro se" ( Lewis , 44 NY3d at 360) and thus, the court's duty to "make a searching inquiry . . . to determine whether that request was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent" was not triggered ( id. at 352; see generally McIntyre , 36 NY2d at 17). Defendant's contention that his plea is invalid because the court failed to inquire about the voluntariness of his plea after he expressed dissatisfaction with defense counsel is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to move either to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Green , 70 AD3d 1392, 1392 [4th Dept 2010]; People v Richardson , 295 AD2d 763, 764 [3d Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 771 [2002]), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see generally People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666-667 [1988]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn