| People v Dodson |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00792 [147 AD3d 1343] |
| February 3, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip A.Dodson, Appellant. |
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered January8, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the firstdegree.
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,of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). Defendant contends thatCounty Court erred in denying his request, which he made just prior to sentencing, for theassignment of new counsel to advise him on whether he should move to withdraw his plea. Weconclude that defendant's contention implicates the voluntariness of the plea and thus surviveshis plea and his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Morris, 94 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2012], lv denied19 NY3d 976 [2012]; see also People vGuantero, 100 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1004 [2013]; People v Phillips, 56 AD3d 1163,1164 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]).
We nonetheless reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in denyinghis request for a substitution of counsel. We conclude that the court made the requisite "minimalinquiry" into defendant's complaints concerning his attorney and his request for a substitution ofcounsel (People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 825 [1990]; see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]; People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507,511 [2004]). Although it was incumbent upon defendant to show "good cause" for thesubstitution of counsel (Sides, 75 NY2d at 824; see People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d12, 18 [1982], rearg dismissed 57 NY2d 776 [1982], cert denied 459 US 1178[1983]), defendant expressed only "vague and generic" complaints having "no merit orsubstance" and thus failed to show that assigned counsel "was in any way deficient inrepresenting him" (Linares, 2 NY3d at 511). Further, the circumstances of this caseevince that defendant's request for a substitution of counsel was simply a delaying tactic to allowhim to avoid or postpone his imminent sentencing and thereby " 'delay the orderlyadministration of justice' " (People v Johnson, 292 AD2d 871, 872 [2002], lvdenied 98 NY2d 652 [2002], quoting Sides, 75 NY2d at 824).Present—Centra, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.