People v. Ward

• Decision Date: 22 October 2014
• Docket Number: 2012-04536, Ind. No. 609/11.
• Citation: 121 A.D.3d 1026,994 N.Y.S.2d 675,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07193
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Langsden WARD, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

121 A.D.3d 1026
994 N.Y.S.2d 675
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07193

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Langsden WARD, appellant.

2012-04536, Ind. No. 609/11.

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

Oct. 22, 2014.

994 N.Y.S.2d 676

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Opinion

121 A.D.3d 1026

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered May 1, 2012, convicting him of predatory sexual assault (two counts), rape in the second degree, rape in the third degree (three counts), criminal sexual act in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of predatory sexual assault, rape in the second degree as charged in the third count of the indictment, and endangering the welfare of a child as charged in the fourth count of the indictment. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of

121 A.D.3d 1027

the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing

994 N.Y.S.2d 677

the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the right to counsel by the trial court's denial of his motion for substitution of counsel. A defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon a showing of good cause, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel (see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ; People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768 ; see also People v. Brown, 305 A.D.2d 422, 423, 759 N.Y.S.2d 168 ). “Whether counsel is substituted is within the ‘discretion and responsibility’ of the trial judge, and a court's duty to consider such a motion is invoked only where a defendant makes a ‘seemingly serious request [ ]’ ” (People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 99–100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283, quoting People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d at 207, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768, and People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d at 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 ). Where a seemingly serious request is made, the trial court is obligated to conduct at least a “minimal...