People v. Willis
| Decision Date | 27 February 1989 |
| Citation | 538 N.Y.S.2d 71,147 A.D.2d 727 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Walter WILLIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Glenn Green, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), rendered December 21, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not deprive him of his right to counsel at a pretrial hearing by either refusing to assign new counsel or by denying his request for a further adjournment to retain counsel of his own choosing. Nor did the court, under the circumstances presented, err in permitting him to proceed pro se with the assigned counsel standing by in an advisory capacity during the course of the hearing.
While an indigent defendant has a right to a court-appointed lawyer, he does not have the right to his choice of assigned counsel (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133). A defendant must show "good cause" before the court will substitute counsel (see, People v. Sawyer, supra, at 19, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133; People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768). The defendant failed to make the requisite showing, his only objection being that counsel had advised him to accept a plea offer. Furthermore, he was given ample opportunity to obtain private counsel but was either unwilling or unable to do so.
The record reveals that the court made the requisite "searching inquiry" to determine that the defendant appreciated the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se (see, People v. Sawyer, supra, 57 N.Y.2d at 21, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562). Indeed, the defendant a 25-year-old radio producer, articulated on the record his own concern with proceeding without counsel. Thus, his subsequent waiver of counsel was certainly "knowing and intelligent" (see, People v. Sawyer, supra, 57 N.Y.2d at 21, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133; People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 364...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gloster
...granted, good cause must be demonstrated (People v. Sawyer, supra, 57 N.Y.2d at 18, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133; People v. Willis, 147 A.D.2d 727, 538 N.Y.S.2d 71). The most compelling reasons would be a showing of ineffectiveness of counsel "by reason of professional incompetence or ......
-
People v. Branch
...good cause must be demonstrated (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133, supra; People v. Willis, 147 A.D.2d 727, 538 N.Y.S.2d 71). "[A] request to change counsel previously retained or assigned must be addressed to the Trial Judge's discretion to insure that......
-
People v. Moss
...v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 453 N.Y.S.2d 418, 438 N.E.2d 1133, cert. denied 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1024; People v. Willis, 147 A.D.2d 727, 538 N.Y.S.2d 71; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893......
-
People v. Tully
...insufficient to warrant substitution of counsel. People v Hoff , 201 AD2d 953, 953-54 [4th Dept. 1994], citing , People v. Willis , 147 AD2d 727, 728, 538 N.Y.S.2d 71, lv. dismissed , 74 NY2d 670, 543 N.Y.S.2d 413, 541 N.E.2d 442 ; People v. Thornton , 167 AD2d 935, 562 N.Y.S.2d 900, lv. de......