From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 22, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Brien, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In reviewing suppression issues, great weight must be accorded the hearing court's determination. Where, as here, that determination is supported by the record, it should not be disturbed (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561; People v. Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82).

We further find that the defendant was not denied his right to counsel. He was given the opportunity to retain private counsel, but was either unable or unwilling to do so. Court-appointed counsel will not be removed except for good cause shown (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178) and the defendant's mere statement of dissatisfaction with his experienced trial counsel did not constitute a showing of good cause. It is also apparent from the record that while the defendant's application to proceed pro se was initially granted, he thereafter changed his mind and requested an attorney. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, the defendant was not denied his right to counsel.

We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Bold

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVEN BOLD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 22, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

We disagree. The defendant made his motion just before the commencement of trial, after previously having had…

People v. Wilkins

Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 5042/84 is affirmed. The hearing court did not abuse its…