People v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 07 June 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05105,925 N.Y.S.2d 553,85 A.D.3d 825
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Marlon Bryan REYNOLDS, also known as Bryan Reynolds, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 825
925 N.Y.S.2d 553
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05105

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Marlon Bryan REYNOLDS, also known as Bryan Reynolds, appellant.

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

June 7, 2011.

[925 N.Y.S.2d 554]

Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RANDALL T. ENG, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

[85 A.D.3d 825] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered September 25, 2009, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea was involuntary because the County Court advised him that the plea offer could be withdrawn if he wished additional time to retain new counsel is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Scivolette, 80 A.D.3d 630, 631, 914 N.Y.S.2d 662; People v. McNair, 79 A.D.3d 908, 909, 912 N.Y.S.2d 421). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant had nearly four months to consider the plea offer prior to the entry of his plea, and that during this period, the defendant was granted two adjournments because he had consulted with a new attorney whom he ultimately did not retain. Under these circumstances, the defendant's request for an adjournment to retain new counsel was a dilatory tactic, and the County Court's refusal to extend the availability of the plea offer in the event that proceedings were adjourned did not deprive the defendant of his right to counsel of his own choosing ( see People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271–272, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393; People v. Allison, 69 A.D.3d 740, 741, 892 N.Y.S.2d 516; People v. Campbell, 54 A.D.3d 959, 960, 863 N.Y.S.2d 827; People v. Plato, 22 A.D.3d 507, 801 N.Y.S.2d 536). Furthermore, nothing that occurred during the plea allocution called into question the voluntariness of the defendant's plea ( see People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797;

[925 N.Y.S.2d 555]

People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Martinez, 78 A.D.3d 966, 967,...