Opinion
1079 KA 20-00144
12-23-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. TRAMMELL BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (ERIC SUN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JESSICA N. CARBONE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (ERIC SUN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JESSICA N. CARBONE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Stephen J. Dougherty, J.), rendered January 2, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that he was coerced into pleading guilty by County Court. That contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Rockwell, 137 A.D.3d 1586, 1586 [4th Dept 2016] ; see generally People v Ali, 96 N.Y.2d 840, 841 [2001]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
We reject defendant's contention that the court failed to conduct a minimal inquiry into his requests for new counsel. "[A] defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon showing 'good cause for a substitution,' such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel" (People v Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824 [1990]; see People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207 [1978]). "Where a defendant makes a 'seemingly serious request[]' for new assigned counsel, the court is obligated to 'make some minimal inquiry'" (People v Graham, 153 A.D.3d 1634, 1635 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1060 [2017], quoting Sides, 75 N.Y.2d at 824-825). Here, the court "afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning [defense counsel], and... thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant's... objections had no merit or substance" (People v Singletary, 63 A.D.3d 1654, 1654 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 839 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Graham, 153 A.D.3d at 1635).
We further conclude that defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.