| People v Munzert |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01308 [92 AD3d 1291] |
| February 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy C.Munzert, Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph V. Cardone, District Attorney, Albion (Katherine Bogan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), renderedNovember 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalmischief in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofcriminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05), arising from an incident inwhich defendant caused $1,895.42 in property damage to the Orleans Correctional Facility,where he was an inmate. Prior to the plea proceeding, defendant sent three pro se letters to theCounty Court Judge who later accepted his plea and sentenced him. In those letters, defendantrequested new counsel, accused assigned defense counsel of having a relationship that was one of"over-familiarity" with the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) and the police and threatened acivil action against the Judge, defense counsel and the ADA for alleged wrongs defendant hadsuffered during this action.
Defendant contends that the court failed to consider his pro se "motions," i.e., the threeletters. We conclude that "defendant abandoned his request for a substitution of counsel[contained in the first letter by] plead[ing] guilty while still being represented by the sameattorney" (People v Hobart, 286 AD2d 916, 916 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 683[2001]). In any event, defendant did not make a " 'seemingly serious request[ ]' " containing therequisite specific factual allegations that would have triggered the court's duty to consider such arequest (People v Porto, 16 NY3d93, 100 [2010], quoting People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]). Furthermore,defendant's "vague assertions that defense counsel was not in frequent contact with him and didnot aid in his defense" were insufficient to demonstrate good cause for substitution (People v MacLean, 48 AD3d1215, 1217 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 866 [2008], reconsideration denied11 NY3d 790 [2008]). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions with respect to thepro se letters and conclude that they are without merit.
Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does notsurvive his guilty plea inasmuch as defendant "failed to demonstrate that the plea bargainingprocess was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the pleabecause of [defense counsel's] allegedly poor performance" (People v Maracle, 85 AD3d 1652, [*2]1653 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 860 [2011] [internalquotation marks omitted]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.