People v. Parker
| Decision Date | 12 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2019–02283,Ind. No. 663/17 |
| Citation | 194 A.D.3d 847,143 N.Y.S.3d 899 (Mem) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert PARKER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Matthew W. Brissenden, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Amanda Manning of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Schwartz, J.), rendered March 26, 2018, convicting him of attempted operating as a major trafficker, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to conduct a "minimal inquiry" into his seemingly serious request for the assignment of new counsel, made via a pro se motion, is without merit.
"The right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to [the] appointment of successive lawyers at [the] defendant's option" ( People v. Washington, 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ). " ‘Nevertheless, the right to be represented by counsel of one's own choosing is a valued one, and a defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon showing good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel’ " ( People v. Graham, 188 A.D.3d 909, 910, 135 N.Y.S.3d 410, quoting People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d at 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ). "A trial court's duty to consider substitution arises ‘only where [the] defendant makes a seemingly serious request[ ]’ " ( People v. Nelson, 189 A.D.3d 1080, 1082, 133 N.Y.S.3d 872, quoting People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ). "Therefore, it is incumbent upon a defendant to make specific factual allegations of serious complaints about counsel" ( People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d at 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "Where a seemingly serious request is made, the trial court is obligated to conduct at least a ‘minimal inquiry’ to determine the nature of the conflict and a possible resolution" ( People v. Graham, 188 A.D.3d at 910, 135 N.Y.S.3d 410, quoting People v. Ward, 121 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 994 N.Y.S.2d 675 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d at 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ). Here, the record does not support the conclusion that the defendant's request was such that it required the Supreme Court to conduct a "minimal inquiry" into his motion for the assignment of new counsel (see People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d at 100–101, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ; People v. Ward, 121 A.D.3d at 1027–1028, 994 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
In any event, the record establishes that the defendant abandoned his request for the assignment of new counsel (see People v. Lewicki, 118 A.D.3d 1328, 1328–1329, 987 N.Y.S.2d 755 ; People v. Miller, 102 A.D.3d 813, 814, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890 ; People v. Ocasio, 81 A.D.3d 1469, 1470, 917 N.Y.S.2d 803 ). Approximately five months after filing his motion for the assignment of new counsel, the defendant determined to plead guilty, while still represented by the same attorney, and confirmed during the plea colloquy that he was satisfied with counsel's services (see People v. Lewicki, 118 A.D.3d at 1328–1329, 987 N.Y.S.2d 755 ). Moreover, after filing the motion and prior to pleading guilty, the defendant appeared with counsel before the Supreme Court for six conferences and never expressed...
To continue reading
Request your trial