People v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 01 October 2010 |
| Citation | 77 A.D.3d 1403,909 N.Y.S.2d 233 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
77 A.D.3d 1403
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
James WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Oct. 1, 2010.
Simone M. Shaheen, Utica, for Defendant-Appellant.
Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3] ). Although the contention of defendant that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary survives his waiver of the right to appeal, "defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review because ... he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction" ( People v. Connolly, 70 A.D.3d 1510, 1511, 894 N.Y.S.2d 694, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 886, 903 N.Y.S.2d 775, 929 N.E.2d 1010). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. During the plea colloquy, defendant denied having any mental or physical impairments, and the record establishes that defendant understood the nature and consequences of his actions
We reject the further contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to rule on his pro se motion for substitution of counsel or to engage in further inquiry into the nature of his dispute with his attorney. Although the court should have expressly denied defendant's motion on the record, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish conclusively that the motion was implicitly denied. With respect to defendant's contention that the court should have engaged in further inquiry into the nature of the dispute between defendant and his attorney, we conclude that defendant's conclusory assertion that defense counsel was not "sufficiently do[ing] his job" failed to "suggest a serious possibility of good cause for substitution [of counsel]" ( People v. Randle [appeal No. 2], 21 A.D.3d 1341, 1341, 801 N.Y.S.2d 188 [internal quotation marks omitted], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 757, 810 N.Y.S.2d 425, 843 N.E.2d 1165; see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Beard
...had no duty to conduct an inquiry regarding defendant's complaints because his assertions were “conclusory” ( cf. People v. Watkins, 77 A.D.3d 1403, 1404, 909 N.Y.S.2d 233,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 956, 917 N.Y.S.2d 116, 942 N.E.2d 327). To the contrary, defendant's complaints were highly specifi......
-
People v. Brown
...was ineffective for failing to investigate potential impeachment evidence, that contention also lacks merit (see People v. Watkins, 77 A.D.3d 1403, 1404–1405, 909 N.Y.S.2d 233 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 956, 917 N.Y.S.2d 116, 942 N.E.2d 327 [2010] ; see generally People v. Garcia......
-
People v. Henderson
...due to his history of mental illness. Although that contention survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Watkins, 77 A.D.3d 1403, 1403, 909 N.Y.S.2d 233 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 956, 917 N.Y.S.2d 116, 942 N.E.2d 327 [2010] ), that contention is not preserv......
-
People v. Bennett, 1028
...2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 985, 958 N.Y.S.2d 700, 982 N.E.2d 620 [2012] ), we conclude that it is without merit (see People v. Watkins, 77 A.D.3d 1403, 1404–1405, 909 N.Y.S.2d 233 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 956, 917 N.Y.S.2d 116, 942 N.E.2d 327 [2010] ).Defendant failed to preser......