98911, People v. Baez

More documents

Recommendations

Info

this Court to appoint he and another attorney who would bepaid by the County rather than by the defendant.”The court also noted that Granich “was not only asking for twoattorneys to be appointed, he was asking for substitute counsel to takehis place while he decided what his future course was going to be inhis own practice.” The court then stated:“When I made my record, I did not want to embarrass Mr.Granich. When Mr. Smith said that Mr. Granich said hewould be gone for at least six months, I did say I told Mr.Granich to put it in writing how long he was going to be goneand he didn’t do it. I did say at the time it wasn’t a major issuein the case, and it was not a major issue. It was notdispositive, but, of course, it was an issue.He was, in effect, asking for substitute counsel for Mr.Theis for him. He was going to be gone, leaving Mr. Theis toresolve all pretrial issues alone. He didn’t know when or if hewas coming back. He was unsure if he would actually moveto Israel. His absence, of course, would delay the properprogress of this case.”With respect to defendant’s demeanor after Granich wasdismissed, the court said, “Mr. Baez was not upset or concerned at allabout me striking my appointment of Mr. Granich once I had foundout that he had not been retained in this case and that he had basicallydeceived the Court and tried to get the court to hire two privatecounsels to represent Mr. Baez.” The court also addressed Smith’stestimony that defendant was agitated by the changes in his counsel:“When Stuart Smith testified in my courtroom regarding Mr. Baezclimbing the walls, I believe that was an absolute lie by the attorney.”The court called Smith’s testimony “an outright and deliberate lie tothis Court,” noting,“My sheriffs monitor my lockup. I can hear the lockup. Whenthere is any noise in my lockup, I go back and see what isgoing on.Mr. Baez has comported himself always as a gentleman inmy courtroom. He has always demonstrated respect for me, asI have for him. This incident did not occur. Mr. Stuart Smithis a liar.-46-
Mr. Baez on that date, on prior dates and subsequent tothat date[,] comported himself always as a gentleman. Mysheriffs never had any problem with him. He engaged mepersonally on almost every court date with any concern thathe had.”The court then addressed defendant’s request to plead guilty. Itnoted that it had responded to defendant’s request by pointing out thatdefendant had made the request before, and that defendant had saidthat he had been thinking about pleading guilty “since the incidentoccurred.” The court further stated, “Mr. Baez had said before hewanted to plead guilty in this courtroom, whether it was coming in orgoing out. Whether the court reporter caught it or not, Mr. Baez hadsaid that to me.” The court then noted again that defendant agreed towait and talk to his lawyers, and that defendant “was not upset” whenhe left. The court further noted that defendant had “alwayscommunicated any concerns” that he had to the court.The court also pointed out that, prior to his plea, defendant hadbeen evaluated by Dr. Coleman, who indicated that defendant wasable to “intelligently discuss his decision to enter a plea of guilty.”Coleman reported that defendant felt the plea would give him“closure,” and that he intended to cooperate with and assist hisattorneys.The court then addressed the affidavit defendant had submitted insupport of his motion to withdraw the guilty plea. It noted thatdefendant had averred that he pleaded guilty “out of the idea” that hecould not receive “proper, just and unbiased representation” withouthis counsel of choice. The court responded, “That lacks credibility.*** I believe Mr. Baez did not testify in my case because he didn’twant to get on this bench and lie in front of me because we havealways been honest and truthful with each other. I believe hisaffidavit is a lie. There is no support for that statement in the recordor anything that happened in this courtroom.” As to defendant’srepresentation that he feared he would not receive properrepresentation from the public defender’s officer, the court found,“That is a lie.” With respect to defendant’s assertion that at the timeof Granich’s removal defendant anticipated going to trial, the courtstated, “That is an incredible statement. As I said, given the weight ofevidence against this defendant, the horrendous nature of this case,-47-
Page 1 and 2: Docket No. 98911.IN THESUPREME COUR
Page 3 and 4: strangulation. On Mena’s body, Co
Page 5 and 6: when she turned her back defendant
Page 7 and 8: The court indicated that defendant
Page 9 and 10: then occurred:“THE COURT: All rig
Page 11 and 12: If this were a case that were near
Page 13 and 14: to talk to the lawyer. Actually the
Page 15 and 16: * * *Let me-just from reading the f
Page 17 and 18: he has, sit down with you one more
Page 19 and 20: to get it resolved,” and defendan
Page 21 and 22: eaking and entering, six counts of
Page 23 and 24: Defendant’s younger brother, Gena
Page 25 and 26: DeSloover also presented a “psych
Page 27 and 28: to return him to his mother’s hou
Page 29 and 30: that, as an axis II diagnosis, 4 th
Page 31 and 32: others,” indicated by at least th
Page 33 and 34: of defendant’s juvenile records s
Page 35 and 36: Defendant also called Ruben Granvil
Page 37 and 38: certainly don’t believe he was br
Page 39 and 40: appropriate sentence.”Defendant
Page 41 and 42: irrelevant, because its theory was
Page 43 and 44: motion for appointment that he plan
Page 45: person. When Granich later told the
Page 49 and 50: ANALYSISI. Right to CounselDefendan
Page 51 and 52: and attorney Theis. After the court
Page 53 and 54: private counsel and that it could n
Page 55 and 56: egarding Granich’s experience gen
Page 57 and 58: We can do-would you do this for me?
Page 59 and 60: experience, and conduct of the accu
Page 61 and 62: 1989), but that case is distinguish
Page 63 and 64: firsthand the credibility and belie
Page 65 and 66: Defendant’s second expert witness
Page 67 and 68: defendant was not under the influen
Page 69 and 70: did apply the “death is the appro
Page 71 and 72: second phase of a death penalty hea
Page 73 and 74: defendant participated in an aggrav
Page 75 and 76: childhood and early introduction to

98911, People v. Baez

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?