Opinion
December 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boomer, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed and defendant's application for reassignment of counsel denied. Memorandum: None of the contentions raised by assigned counsel and defendant pro se requires reversal and only a few require comment. Defendant's statements were not taken in violation of his right to counsel. That right did not attach when a parole violation warrant was issued for defendant's arrest since defendant had no right to counsel in the parole proceeding until his final revocation hearing (see, People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 N.Y.2d 23, 31; People v Simons, 22 N.Y.2d 533, 536-539, cert denied 393 U.S. 1107). Defendant's contention that the police should have inquired whether he was represented by counsel on pending unrelated charges (see, People v Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225; People v Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167) lacks merit because defendant did not establish that he was in fact represented on such charges (see, People v Rosa, 65 N.Y.2d 380, 384-386; People v Kazmarick, 52 N.Y.2d 322, 324).
The court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) was not an abuse of discretion. "[Q]uestioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged" (People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The court precluded the prosecutor from questioning defendant about two prior convictions and the record reveals that the court carefully balanced the probative value of such questioning against the prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 147-149; People v Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 549-550).
Although the court should have charged the jury on the ambiguity of evidence of defendant's flight (see, People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, rearg denied 15 N.Y.2d 679), defendant did not preserve the issue by objection or further request and the error would be harmless in any event (see, People v Jackson, 142 A.D.2d 599, 600). On this record defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). We have reviewed the remaining contentions preserved for review and find each one lacking in merit.
Since the briefs submitted on appeal raise all the arguable issues on defendant's behalf, defendant's application for reassignment of counsel is denied.