| People v Brown |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03696 [117 AD3d 962] |
| May 21, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dwight Brown, Appellant. |
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Braslow, J.), rendered July 26, 2011, convicting him of attempted assault in the firstdegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court improperlydenied his request for substitution of new assigned counsel at sentencing without makingsufficient inquiry to determine the validity of his claim. The court furnished thedefendant with an ample opportunity to state the basis for his complaint against hisattorney. However, the defendant failed to offer more than vague and conclusoryassertions of deceit. As such, the court was not obligated to inquire further (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d93, 100 [2010]; People vWoods, 110 AD3d 748 [2013]; People v Stevenson, 36 AD3d 634, 635 [2007]). Under thecircumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying therequest (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 101-102; People v Salgado, 111 AD3d859, 860 [2013]; People v Harris, 251 AD2d 79, 80 [1998]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims, asserted inhis pro se supplemental brief, of prosecutorial misconduct (see People v Hansen,95 NY2d 227, 232 [2000]; People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234, 240 [1982]) andineffective assistance of counsel that does not directly involve the plea negotiation andsentence (see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; People v Tarrant, 114 AD3d710, 710-711 [2014];People v Dunne, 106 AD3d 928 [2013]). Moreover, the defendant's validwaiver of his right to appeal further precludes appellate review of his contention that hewas deprived of the effective assistance of counsel unrelated to the voluntariness of hisplea (see People v Gomez,114 AD3d 701, 702 [2014]; People v Murphy, 114 AD3d 704, 705 [2014]; People vTarrant, 114 AD3d at 711). Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ.,concur.