People v Stevens
2018 NY Slip Op 04760 [162 AD3d 1077]
June 27, 2018
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2018


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Miquan Stevens, Appellant.

John R. Lewis, Sleepy Hollow, NY, for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and WilliamC. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Barry E.Warhit, J.), rendered January 6, 2016, convicting him of murder in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion indenying, without further inquiry, his request for new assigned counsel, made four days prior tothe start of pretrial hearings. When a defendant's request on its face suggests a serious possibilityof irreconcilable conflict with defense counsel, the trial court is obliged to make some minimalinquiry to determine whether the request has a genuine basis (see People v Sides, 75NY2d 822, 825 [1990]; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 207 [1978]). Such inquiry is notrequired when the defendant's request is based on conclusory statements or generalized assertions(see People v Moore, 228 AD2d 622 [1996]; People v Gaines, 212 AD2d 727,727-728 [1995]). "Whether counsel is substituted is within the 'discretion and responsibility' ofthe trial judge" (People v Porto, 16NY3d 93, 99 [2010], quoting People v Medina, 44 NY2d at 207). Here, thedefendant's generalized assertion that he needed a new attorney did not warrant further inquiry,and the denial of the defendant's request was proper (see People v Moore, 228 AD2d at622).

The defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be reviewed on directappeal because they are based on matters outside the record on appeal (see People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d603, 604 [2011]; People vMiller, 68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]). " 'The appropriate vehicle. . . to allege [*2]ineffective assistance of counselgrounded in allegations referring to facts outside of the . . . record is pursuant toCPL 440.10, where matters dehors the record may be considered' " (People vRohlehr, 87 AD3d at 604, quoting People v Miller, 68 AD3d at 1135). Balkin, J.P.,Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.