People v. Raghnal

• Decision Date: 17 July 2020
• Docket Number: KA 18-00614,362
• Citation: 185 A.D.3d 1411,127 N.Y.S.3d 665
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jamel RAGHNAL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

185 A.D.3d 1411

127 N.Y.S.3d 665

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jamel RAGHNAL, Defendant-Appellant.

362

KA 18-00614

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

July 17, 2020

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (NATHANIEL V. RILEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY W. OASTLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of arson in the second degree ( Penal Law § 150.15 ), burglary in the second degree (§ 140.25 [2] ), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (§ 145.00 [1] ). At the outset, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 565-566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019] ).

Defendant contends that County Court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry into his complaints regarding his assigned counsel. Although "[t]he 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 ..., 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 substitution’ " ( People v. Sides , 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ). Thus, trial courts are required to conduct "at least a ‘minimal inquiry’ " when a defendant requests substitution of counsel and voices " ‘seemingly serious’ " complaints about his or her assigned counsel ( People v. Porto , 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 [2010], quoting Sides , 75 N.Y.2d at 824-825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ; see People v. Edwards , 173 A.D.3d 1615, 1616, 102 N.Y.S.3d 354 [4th Dept. 2019] ).

Here, defendant sent letters to the court on January 23, 2017 and March 28, 2017, each containing allegations of various shortcomings in assigned counsel's performance. Neither of those letters, however, contained a request that the court provide defendant with substitute counsel, and thus defendant, through those letters, failed to preserve his contention for review (see generally People v. Alexander , 132 A.D.3d 1412, 1413, 17 N.Y.S.3d 667 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1148, 39 N.Y.S.3d 383, 62 N.E.3d 123 [2016] ). In any event, the record establishes that the court sufficiently inquired into defendant's complaints at a subsequent appearance on March 31, 2017, and ensured that defendant and defense counsel had resolved the alleged issues that had been raised in the January 23, 2017 and March 28, 2017 letters.

Defendant thereafter sent another letter to the court on April 11, 2017, again raising certain complaints regarding counsel's performance. Like the prior letters, however, defendant did not request that the court assign substitute counsel, and thus the April 11, 2017 letter failed to preserve the issue for review (see generally Alexander , 132 A.D.3d at 1413, 17 N.Y.S.3d 667 ). In any event, even if defendant had requested substitute counsel in that letter, defendant "failed to proffer specific allegations of a ‘seemingly serious request’ that would require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry" ( Porto , 16 N.Y.3d at 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ; see generally Edwards , 173 A.D.3d at 1616, 102 N.Y.S.3d 354 ).

In May 2017, and as the scheduled date of defendant's trial approached, defendant sent two additional letters to the court. Those letters, however, did not contain a request that the court assign substitute counsel, and instead indicated that, in defendant's estimation, he and his attorney were not ready for trial. Likewise, at the next court appearance, at which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty, defendant requested an adjournment of the scheduled trial, but did not request substitute counsel. Thus, defendant's letters of May 2017 and his statements at the following court appearance did not preserve his contention for review "inasmuch as the record reflects that both defendant and the court understood that defendant sought an adjournment ... and did not request new assigned counsel" ( People v. Johnson , 94 A.D.3d 1496, 1497, 942 N.Y.S.2d 741 [4th Dept. 2012], affd 20 N.Y.3d 990, 960 N.Y.S.2d 55, 983 N.E.2d 1239 [2013] ; see generally Alexander , 132 A.D.3d at 1413, 17 N.Y.S.3d 667 ).

We reject defendant's further contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment. It is well settled that "[t]he court's exercise of discretion in denying a request for an adjournment will not be overturned absent a showing of prejudice" ( People v. Resto , 147 A.D.3d 1331, 1332, 47 N.Y.S.3d 522 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1000, 57 N.Y.S.3d 722, 80 N.E.3d 415 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 N.Y.3d 1094, 63 N.Y.S.3d 10, 85 N.E.3d 105 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and defendant made no such showing here, inasmuch as he makes only a general assertion that he and his attorney required additional time to prepare his defense (see generally People v. Peterkin , 81 A.D.3d 1358, 1360, 921 N.Y.S.2d 744 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17...