| People v Campbell |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07136 [54 AD3d 959] |
| September 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Phillip Campbell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anne C. Feigus ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.),rendered June 6, 2006, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the third degree, andcriminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not denied his right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing bythe trial court's refusal to adjourn the trial. "[A]bsent exigent or compelling circumstances, acourt may, in the exercise of its discretion, deny a defendant's request to substitute counsel madeon the eve of or during trial, if the defendant has been accorded a reasonable opportunity to retaincounsel of his own choosing before that time" (People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271[1980]; see People v Gjelaj, 46AD3d 911, 912 [2007]; People vGoodwine, 46 AD3d 702 [2007]; People v Hansen, 37 AD3d 318 [2007]). Here, the defendant hadample opportunity to retain counsel of his own choosing before that time, and failed todemonstrate that the requested adjournment was necessitated by forces beyond his control andwas not a dilatory tactic (see People v Grigg, 299 AD2d 367 [2002]; People vBrown, 277 AD2d 246 [2000]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel(see [*2]People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial courtconsidered improper factors in imposing sentence (see People v Harrison, 82 NY2d 693,694 [1993]; People v Gonzalez, 43AD3d 827, 828 [2007]; People vSantos-Mispas, 38 AD3d 923 [2007]; People v Leon, 19 AD3d 509, 510 [2005]). In any event, thiscontention is without merit, and the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People vSuitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Lifson, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.