| People v Singleton |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05369 [163 AD3d 1272] |
| July 19, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Willie L. Singleton, Appellant. |
Kevin A. Jones, Ithaca, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Jordan Yorke of counsel), forrespondent.
Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.),rendered April 27, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
In October 2014, defendant, who had been assigned an Assistant Public Defender, wasarraigned on a multicount indictment. On November 24, 2014, County Court granted defensecounsel's request for a two-week adjournment, but denied defendant's subsequent request thatsuch adjournment be extended in order for him to investigate the possibility of hiring privatecounsel. On December 8, 2014, the court granted defendant's request for a further adjournmentbased upon his assertion that he was in the process of retaining counsel. Thereafter, on January 5,2015, the court again granted defendant an additional adjournment in order to secure necessaryfunds for a retainer fee; however, the court informed defendant that no further adjournments forthe purpose of hiring private counsel would be granted. On January 26, 2015, defendant's requestfor a further adjournment for that purpose was denied. Ultimately, defendant, represented by theAssistant Public Defender, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefourth degree and was sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. Defendantappeals.
We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that County Court, by denying his request foran adjournment, deprived him of his constitutional right to be defended by counsel of hischoosing. "It is certainly well established that the right to counsel, guaranteed by both the Federaland State Constitutions . . . , embraces the right of a criminal defendant to berepresented by counsel of his own choosing[, and] . . . a defendant must be accordeda reasonable opportunity to select and retain his counsel" (People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d264, 270 [1980] [citations omitted]; seePeople v Rohadfox, 114 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2014]). "[T]his right is qualified in thesense that a defendant may not employ such right as a means to delay judicial proceedings"(People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d at 271; see People v Milord, 115 AD3d 774, 774 [2014], lv denied24 NY3d 963 [2014]; People vOrminski, 108 AD3d 864, 865 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 958 [2013]). In ourview, defendant had ample opportunity to retain counsel of his choosing during theapproximately two months of adjournments granted by the court. Despite defendant's purportedefforts to hire private counsel, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's conclusion that furtherdelay was unwarranted under the circumstances here (see People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d at271; People v Orminski, 108 AD3d at 866; People v Doyle, 82 AD3d 564, 564 [2011], lv denied 17NY3d 805 [2011]).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.