People v. Wright

• Citation: 95 A.D.3d 1046,943 N.Y.S.2d 766,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03676
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Timothy WRIGHT, appellant.
• Decision Date: 08 May 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03676
943 N.Y.S.2d 766
95 A.D.3d 1046

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Timothy WRIGHT, appellant.

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

May 8, 2012.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered March 25, 2010, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was involuntary because the County Court failed to assign him new counsel is unpreserved for appellate review, since he withdrew his application prior to pleading guilty and did not move to vacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence ( see CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05[2]; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 905, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Reynolds, 85 A.D.3d 825, 925 N.Y.S.2d 553; People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d 734, 735, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Perez, 51 A.D.3d 1043, 861 N.Y.S.2d 63). In any event, the defendant was not entitled to new assigned counsel since he failed to show good cause for the substitution, and the circumstances demonstrated that the application, which was made on the day of the scheduled pretrial hearing, was merely a dilatory tactic ( see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233; People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393; People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 208, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768; People v. Reynolds, 85 A.D.3d 825, 925 N.Y.S.2d 553; People v. Martin, 41 A.D.3d 616, 838 N.Y.S.2d 166; 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, 781–782, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797; People v. Reynolds, 85 A.D.3d 825, 925 N.Y.S.2d 553; People v. Kulmatycski, 83 A.D.3d at 735, 920 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Martinez, 78 A.D.3d 966, 967, 910 N.Y.S.2d 684).

The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that counsel's alleged...