| People v McErlean |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 02821 [149 AD3d 872] |
| April 12, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v James McErlean, Appellant. |
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.),rendered September 11, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assaultin the second degree, resisting arrest, and possession of burglar's tools, upon his plea of guilty,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the County Court erred in denying his pro se motions forsubstitution of new assigned counsel, made on the eve of trial and at sentencing, without makingsufficient inquiry to determine the validity of his motions. The defendant's valid waiver of hisright to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention, except to the extent that his claimimplicates the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Rolfe, 83 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2011]). To the extentthat the defendant is arguing that the denial of his motions for substitution of counsel implicatedthe voluntariness of his plea, the record does not provide a basis to conclude that the defendant'smotions were based on specific factual allegations of serious complaints about his counsel (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93,99-100 [2010]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Medina, 44NY2d 199, 207 [1978]). Consequently, the court was not obligated to inquire further, and themotions were properly denied (seePeople v Ward, 121 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2014]; People v Brown, 117 AD3d 962 [2014]; People v Woods, 110 AD3d 748[2013]; People v Stevenson, 36AD3d 634, 635 [2007]).
The defendant contends that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion indenying his request for an adjournment to file a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Thedefendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention,except to the extent that his motion to withdraw his plea related to the voluntariness of the plea(see People v Elliott, 62 AD3d1098, 1098-1099 [2009]). The decision to grant an adjournment is committed to the sounddiscretion of the court (see People vSpears, 24 NY3d 1057, 1059 [2014]; People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 405[1977]). To the extent that the defendant's motion was based on a claim that his plea wasinvoluntary, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the request for anadjournment to submit a motion, since the defendant failed to articulate any ground upon whichthe plea could be withdrawn (see People v Spears, 24 NY3d at 1060; People vElliott, 62 AD3d at 1099; People vGrimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2008]; People v Rodriguez, 299 AD2d 564, 565[2002]; People v Degree, 270 [*2]AD2d 847 [2000]).Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.