| People v Williams |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 06594 [210 AD3d 1507] |
| November 18, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lovell M. Williams, Appellant. |
Mark D. Funk, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kathleen P. Reardon of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Kaylan C. Porter of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.),rendered December 21, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guiltyof attempted robbery in the first 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 ofattempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[2]), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to conduct the requisiteminimal inquiry into his request for substitution of counsel. We reject that contentionbecause even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention "is not foreclosed by hisguilty plea because it implicates the voluntariness of the plea . . . ," weconclude that defendant "abandoned his request for new counsel when he decid[ed]. . . to plead guilty while still being represented by the same attorney" (People v Clemons, 201 AD3d1355, 1355 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1032 [2022] [internalquotation marks omitted]; seePeople v Jeffords, 185 AD3d 1417, 1418 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35NY3d 1095 [2020]; People vHarris, 182 AD3d 992, 994 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066[2020]). During the plea colloquy, defendant "expressed no concerns with [his] attorneyand instead confirmed that he was satisfied with [his] attorney's advice andrepresentation" (People vSeymore, 188 AD3d 1767, 1769 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d1100 [2021]; see People vLewicki, 118 AD3d 1328, 1328-1329 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23NY3d 1064 [2014]).
We reject defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance ofcounsel due to defense counsel's failure to seek suppression of statements that defendantmade to law enforcement personnel without the benefit of Miranda warningswhile he was incarcerated on an unrelated parole violation. Defendant's contention doesnot survive his guilty plea because defendant has not "demonstrate[d] that the pleabargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he]entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" (People v Jackson, 202 AD3d1447, 1449 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 951 [2022] [internalquotation marks omitted]; seePeople v Coleman, 178 AD3d 1377, 1378 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35NY3d 1026 [2020]). Defendant received an advantageous plea deal and there is noreasonable probability that, but for defense counsel's alleged error, defendant would nothave pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial (see Coleman, 178AD3d at 1378). Present—Smith, J.P., Lindley, Curran, Bannister and Montour,JJ.