| People v Goossens |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01299 [92 AD3d 1281] |
| February 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v CarlGoossens, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
—[*1] Carl Goossens, defendant-appellant pro se. Thomas E. Moran, District Attorney, Geneseo (Eric R. Schiener of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), renderedDecember 9, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted bribinga witness, conspiracy in the fifth degree and criminal solicitation in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, ofattempted bribing a witness (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.00 [a]), conspiracy in thefifth degree (§ 105.05 [1]) and criminal solicitation in the fourth degree (§ 100.05[1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court violated hisright to present a defense by limiting his cross-examination of a witness (see People vAngelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Schafer, 81 AD3d 1361, 1363 [2011], lv denied17 NY3d 861 [2011]; People vDorn, 71 AD3d 1523 [2010]). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit (see generally People v Corby, 6 NY3d231, 234-235 [2005]; People vLester, 83 AD3d 1578 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 818 [2011]). Viewing theevidence in light of the elements of the crime of attempted bribing a witness as charged to thejury (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict with respect to that count is not againstthe weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Defendant's remaining contentions are raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Defendantcontends that the court erred in denying his request to substitute assigned counsel because hedemonstrated good cause for the substitution. We reject that contention. The court made therequisite " 'minimal inquiry' " into defendant's reasons for requesting new counsel (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 100[2010]; see People v Adger, 83AD3d 1590, 1591-1592 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 857 [2011]; People v Russell, 55 AD3d 1314[2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 930 [2009]), and defendant " 'did not establish a seriouscomplaint concerning defense counsel's representation and thus did not suggest a seriouspossibility of good cause for substitution [of counsel]' " (Adger, 83 AD3d at 1591). Wenote that the court had previously granted defendant's request to substitute counsel, and that "'[t]he right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed [*2]lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successivelawyers at defendant's option' " (Peoplev Ward, 27 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006], 7 NY3d871 [2006], quoting People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]). Viewing the evidence,the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of representation, weconclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People vFlores, 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Wereject the further contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion in denying hisrequest for a missing witness charge with respect to two witnesses. The two witnesses wereunavailable and, in any event, the People established that their testimony would have beencumulative (see generally People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 196-197 [2003]; Peoplev Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]).
Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to conduct a post-trial hearing to determinewhether he was denied a fair trial when jurors allegedly observed him being escorted in shacklesfrom the courthouse on the first day of trial. That contention is unpreserved for our review"inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for therecord and neither formally objected nor requested any relief" with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273,1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 [2007]; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 [2007], lv denied 8NY3d 980 [2007]). In any event, there is no indication in the record that the alleged "brief and. . . inadvertent" observation by the jurors prejudiced defendant (People vHarper, 47 NY2d 857, 858 [1979];see People v Montgomery, 1 AD3d 984 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]).Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Martoche, JJ.