Editor's note: This story began with a tip drawing our attention to a letter in the Gazette. We independently checked the published court opinions; the account below is based on those public records. Croton News has also added monitoring of published appellate decisions involving cases originating in Croton courts to its legal reporting process. Know something we should look into? Send us a tip — anonymous tips welcome.
New York’s Appellate Term reversed a Croton-on-Hudson Village Court judgment on May 21, 2026, finding that the defendant had not validly waived his right to an attorney before representing himself at trial. The unanimous decision in *People v. Martinez* ordered a new trial for Joseph Martinez. The July 12, 2023 judgment, rendered following a jury verdict, convicted him of driving while ability impaired by drugs. Village Justice Sam R. Watkins Jr. presided. Source 1

The request to represent himself

According to the appellate opinion, Martinez appeared with appointed counsel on November 22, 2022, and told the court he wanted to represent himself. Watkins asked about his education, occupation and experience with the criminal justice system, as well as his understanding of the next step in the proceeding and possible punishment. The opinion recounts that Martinez had graduated from high school, reported limited experience with the courts and did not know the next procedural step. Watkins cautioned him about the risks of proceeding without an attorney and the experience and education lawyers bring to a case. Martinez repeated his request. The court allowed him to represent himself and recommended that appointed counsel remain in a standby role. Martinez agreed. Source 1

What the appellate court decided

The panel found that the general warnings did not sufficiently explain the risks of self-representation or the importance of a lawyer in the adversarial process. It also found that the Village Court had not informed Martinez of the potential sentence if convicted, had not advised him that he would face the same procedural standards as an attorney, and had not adequately explained how standby counsel differed from an attorney conducting the defense. The presence of standby counsel did not excuse the inadequate inquiry, the panel held. It concluded that Martinez’s waiver of counsel was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, reversed the judgment and returned the case to the Village Court for a new trial. The ruling did not acquit Martinez or dismiss the charge. Source 1

The standard for waiving counsel

New York defendants may choose to represent themselves, but a court must first establish an informed waiver of the right to counsel. In *People v. Baines*, a 2022 decision cited by the Martinez panel, the Court of Appeals said that general cautions against self-representation were insufficient. It also said courts permitting standby counsel should explain that role and how it differs from full representation. Source 2 The inquiry does not require a fixed script. In *People v. Blue*, decided in 2024 and also cited in Martinez, the Court of Appeals said reviewing courts may consider the whole record to assess a defendant’s understanding at the time of the waiver. The majority rejected a categorical requirement to recite the maximum possible prison term during the waiver discussion and upheld the waiver on the record before it. Source 3 The Martinez decision was issued by the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts. Justices Joseph R. Conway, Maria S. Vazquez-Doles and Maureen T. Liccione concurred. Source 1

Public records

This article covers the May 21, 2026 ruling. The records below include the complete published opinion and the two precedents discussed above. The hearing account comes from the appellate opinion. A subsequent disposition has not been verified. The hosted records are reformatted text reading copies of the official publications, not certified copies or original-file downloads. This is not the complete case file: the local docket, hearing transcript, appellate briefs and post-remand records are not included.