People v. Stone, 22 N.Y.3d 520

Defendant (multiple prior theft convictions) represented distrustful attitude toward appointed counsel and requested to proceed pro se during trial; court conducted extended Faretta colloquy over two days.
Assigned counsel ultimately joined defendant’s pro se request; court granted it and appointed counsel as standby; defendant began self-representation for voir dire, opening statement, and part of cross-examination, then asked standby counsel to resume.
Defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary; sentencing was delayed and, months later, psychiatric concerns arose leading to a CPL 730.30 examination.
Examinations found psychotic symptoms and temporary incompetency to proceed; after treatment defendant was restored to competency and later sentenced to concurrent seven-year terms plus postrelease supervision.
On appeal defendant argued, invoking Indiana v. Edwards, that the trial court should have sua sponte assessed a heightened competency to waive counsel before allowing self-representation; the Appellate Division rejected the claim and this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated defendant’s constitutional rights by failing to sua sponte assess a heightened competency before permitting pro se representation	The People argued no obligation to hold a special competency hearing absent signs of incompetence; the presumption of competence applies	Defendant argued Edwards requires a two-tier competency standard and a competency hearing before allowing self-representation	Court held no abuse of discretion: Edwards does not mandate a separate hearing; absent contemporaneous indicia of severe mental illness the trial court permissibly granted Faretta request after a searching inquiry

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (established competency-to-stand-trial standard requiring factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process requires competency to proceed)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and requirement of knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (states may deny pro se requests when severe mental illness renders defendant unable to conduct defense despite meeting Dusky standard)
People v. Reason, 37 N.Y.2d 351 (New York recognizes mental capacity can affect voluntariness of waiver; trial court should consider mental capability during Faretta inquiry)
People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456 (presumption of competency; later incompetency does not retroactively infect earlier proceedings)
People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10 (discusses common motives for pro se requests and need for inquiry)
People v. Providence, 2 N.Y.3d 579 (affirming requirement of a searching inquiry for Faretta waivers)
People v. Mendez, 1 N.Y.3d 15 (People bear burden to prove competency by preponderance once issue is raised)
United States v. Bernard, 708 F.3d 583 (4th Cir.) (Edwards does not create mandatory separate competency hearing)
United States v. Turner, 644 F.3d 713 (8th Cir.) (similar rejection of a per se Edwards hearing rule)
United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 385 (7th Cir.) (same)