| People v Correa |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08784 [145 AD3d 1640] |
| December 23, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vYadiel Correa, Appellant. |
Robert A. Dinieri, Clyde, for defendant-appellant.
Richard M. Healy, District Attorney, Lyons (Bruce A. Rosekrans of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Daniel G. Barrett, J.), renderedMarch 27, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (two counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of,inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law§ 220.16 [1]) and conspiracy in the fourth degree (§ 105.10[1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for a substitutionof counsel. It is well settled that "[t]he decision to allow a defendant to substitute counselis largely within the discretion of the court to which the application is made" (People v Jackson, 85 AD3d1697, 1699 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 817 [2011] [internal quotation marksomitted]; see People vStevenson, 36 AD3d 634, 634 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 927 [2007]),and here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant'srequest.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not err in denying the request forsubstitution without making further inquiry into the reasons for the request. A "court'sduty to consider such a motion is invoked only where a defendant makes a 'seeminglyserious request[ ]' . . . Therefore, it is incumbent upon a defendant to makespecific factual allegations of 'serious complaints about counsel' " in support ofhis or her motion (People vPorto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]). Here, to the contrary, "[f]urther inquiry wasnot required because [defendant']s conclusory assertions did not suggest the seriouspossibility of a genuine conflict of interest" (Stevenson, 36 AD3d at 635; see People v Lewicki, 118AD3d 1328, 1329 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1064 [2014]; People v Boswell, 117 AD3d1493, 1494 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1060 [2014]). In any event,defendant abandoned his request when he " 'decid[ed] . . . to pleadguilty while still being represented by the same attorney' " (People v Guantero, 100 AD3d1386, 1387 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1004 [2013]; see Boswell,117 AD3d at 1494; see alsoPeople v Ocasio, 81 AD3d 1469, 1470 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 898[2011], cert denied 565 US 910 [2011]).
Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction contains a typographical errorinasmuch as it incorrectly reflects that defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate termof imprisonment of 1 to 3 years on the conspiracy count, whereas the parties agree, andthe sentencing minutes reflect, that he was sentenced to 1