Opinion
No. 834 KA 18-00699
11-18-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. LOVELL M. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KAYLAN C. PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KAYLAN C. PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered December 21, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [2]), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to conduct the requisite minimal inquiry into his request for substitution of counsel. We reject that contention because even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by his guilty plea because it implicates the voluntariness of the plea...," we conclude that defendant "abandoned his request for new counsel when he decid[ed]... to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney" (People v Clemons, 201 A.D.3d 1355, 1355 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1032 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jeffords, 185 A.D.3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1095 [2020]; People v Harris, 182 A.D.3d 992, 994 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1066 [2020]). During the plea colloquy, defendant "expressed no concerns with [his] attorney and instead confirmed that he was satisfied with [his] attorney's advice and representation" (People v Seymore, 188 A.D.3d 1767, 1769 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1100 [2021]; see People v Lewicki, 118 A.D.3d 1328, 1328-1329 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1064 [2014]).
We reject defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel's failure to seek suppression of statements that defendant made to law enforcement personnel without the benefit of Miranda warnings while he was incarcerated on an unrelated parole violation. Defendant's contention does not survive his guilty plea because defendant has not "demonstrate[d] that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" (People v Jackson, 202 A.D.3d 1447, 1449 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 951 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Coleman, 178 A.D.3d 1377, 1378 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1026 [2020]). Defendant received an advantageous plea deal and there is no reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel's alleged error, defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial (see Coleman, 178 A.D.3d at 1378).