| People v Stevenson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08147 [112 AD3d 989] |
| December 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DavidJ. Stevenson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport ofcounsel), for respondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr.,J.), rendered January 4, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
In May 2011, defendant was charged in a superior court information with criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Defendant waived indictmentand, represented by assigned counsel, thereafter entered into a plea agreement pursuant towhich he would receive six months of interim probation and, if successfully completed, asentence of five years of probation. During the plea colloquy, County Court affirmed thatdefendant was in good physical and mental health and that he had not been threatened orforced into entering the plea agreement. When asked whether he was satisfied withcounsel's performance, defendant unequivocally stated that he had discussed the case atlength with counsel and that he believed that counsel had done a "good job." The courtthereafter accepted defendant's guilty plea and sentenced him to six months of interimprobation, which included psychiatric treatment and participation with an assistedoutpatient treatment order.
When defendant appeared for sentencing in November 2011, after successfullycompleting his interim probation, defendant resisted his continued participation with theassisted [*2]outpatient treatment order and, for the firsttime, expressed dissatisfaction with counsel and requested a new attorney. County Courtpointed out that counsel had performed well in negotiating probation rather than prisontime for defendant, but informed defendant that he had the right to hire different counselor represent himself, although he did not have a choice of assigned counsel. At counsel'srequest, suggesting that defendant "may not be himself today," the matter was adjourned.
When the matter came on for sentencing in January 2012, defendant still expresseddissatisfaction with his representation, alleging for the first time that counsel hadpressured him into taking the plea agreement while defendant was on medication. CountyCourt reminded defendant that, at the time of the plea, he had stated that he had not beenpressured into pleading guilty and the court had taken defendant at his word.Accordingly, the court imposed the agreed-upon five years of probation. Defendantappeals.
We affirm. We find no merit to defendant's contention that County Court failed tomake adequate inquiry before denying his request for substitute counsel. "An indigentcriminal defendant must demonstrate 'good cause' for the appointment of substitutecounsel, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict" (People v Malcolm, 74 AD3d1483, 1486 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 954 [2010], quoting People vSides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]). The trialcourt, in determining whether good cause exists, must consider the timing of the request,the effect on the progress of the case and whether present counsel is capable of providingmeaningful assistance (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d at 510; People v Rolfe, 83 AD3d1219, 1220 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 809 [2011]; People vMalcolm, 74 AD3d at 1486). Here, County Court made ample inquiry intodefendant's dissatisfaction with counsel and—having specifically querieddefendant about the claimed deficiencies during the plea colloquy—found them tobe unpersuasive. The court further noted that, considering defendant's extensive criminalhistory, counsel had performed admirably in convincing both the court and the DistrictAttorney that defendant would be better served by probation. We find no abuse ofCounty Court's discretion in denying defendant's request for substitute counsel (see People v Phillips, 96 AD3d1154, 1156 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1000 [2012]; People vMalcolm, 74 AD3d at 1487; People v Breedlove, 61 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2009], lvdenied 12 NY3d 913 [2009]).
Lastly, we reject defendant's challenge to the condition of his probation that requireshim to take antipsychotic medication. Defendant agreed to voluntarily comply with alltreatment recommendations as a requirement of his right to remain at liberty and thisrequirement is not punitive, but, rather, is reasonably related to his rehabilitation (seePeople v Hale, 93 NY2d 454, 462 [1999]; People v Franco, 69 AD3d 981, 983 [2010]; People vBrogan, 292 AD2d 781, 782 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 673 [2002]).
Peters, P.J., Rose and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.