Opinion
570176/16
11-10-2021
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jalen C., Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered February 2, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Hagler, Silvera, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered February 2, 2016, affirmed.
Defendant was not deprived of his right to conflict-free counsel as a result of the Legal Aid Society's brief simultaneous representation of defendant in this forcible touching/second-degree harassment case and one of his codefendants in an unrelated criminal prosecution arising from a riot on Riker's Island, where said codefendant is represented by a different Legal Aid attorney (see People v Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d 53 [1971]). When the parties appeared before Judge Adler on January 14, 2016, defense counsel sought to be relieved because of "a conflict that arose yesterday," explaining that defendant was arrested for the Riker's Island incident, and that Legal Aid represented one of the codefendants in that case. In denying the application, the plea court indicated that the underlying case was on for trial and that Legal Aid should seek to be relieved in the Riker's Island case. However, on the same day, and before any hearing or trial commenced, defendant secured a favorable and advantageous plea agreement, resulting in a sentence of conditional discharge upon an adjudication that he was a youthful offender.
On these facts, "the record does not establish that any conflict operated to defendant's detriment or had a substantial relation to the conduct of his defense" (People v Udeke, 166 A.D.3d 549 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1129 [2018]; see People v Brown, 33 N.Y.3d 983, 987 [2019]; People v Harris, 99 N.Y.2d 202, 210-212 [2002]; People v Miller, 19 A.D.3d 237 [2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 808 [2005]).
In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm the conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Because we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Teron, 139 A.D.3d 450 [2016]).