People v. Nunez

• Decision Date: 19 October 1992
• Citation: 186 A.D.2d 764,589 N.Y.S.2d 64
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Miguel NUNEZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 64

589 N.Y.S.2d 64

186 A.D.2d 764

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Miguel NUNEZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 19, 1992.

Howard G. O'Rourke, Valley Stream, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Peter A. Weinstein and Judith R. Sternberg, of counsel), for respondent.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and EIBER, O'BRIEN and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered October 1, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials on the ground that they were obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest. He contends that the People lacked probable cause for his arrest because the informant--a suspect in the crimes, and later, a codefendant--was inherently unreliable. We disagree. The information provided to the police by the informant, which included a detailed account of the defendant's alleged role, identification of the crime scene and the defendant's car, and other facts which the police were able to confirm by their own independent investigation and observations, constituted probable cause for the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489-90, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946; People v. Crayon, 139 A.D.2d 840, 527 N.Y.S.2d 577; see also, People v. Richardson, 133 A.D.2d 784, 520 N.Y.S.2d 69).

We also find unavailing the defendant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to substitute his trial counsel subsequent to his complaint concerning the adequacy of her representation. "The right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant's option" (People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233; People v. Kirkland, 177 A.D.2d 946, 947, 577 N.Y.S.2d 987). However, a defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel if he demonstrates "good cause" for the substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel (People v. Sides, supra; see, People v. Kirkland, supra; People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768). The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing the defendant's request for the appointment of new trial counsel. The defendant failed to demonstrate "good cause" for the substitution (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 19, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133, cert. denied 459 U.S 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1024). Neither the defense counsel's status as a former Assistant District Attorney nor the fact that she purportedly visited the defendant only twice during his incarceration prior to the trial constituted the kind of irreconcilable conflict contemplated by People v. Medina (supra) and its...