Opinion
2014-09-26
The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. Aaron JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Misha A. Coulson of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Misha A. Coulson of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, and VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.27[1][a][i][b] ). Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is not preserved for our review because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground ( see People v. Brown, 115 A.D.3d 1204, 1205, 982 N.Y.S.2d 255; People v. Oldham, 24 A.D.3d 1289, 1289, 805 N.Y.S.2d 903, lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 779, 811 N.Y.S.2d 346, 844 N.E.2d 801). Contrary to defendant's further contention, his factual allocution did not indicate a lack of intent or attempt, and thus County Court had no duty to make a further inquiry into those elements during the plea allocution ( see generally People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).
We reject defendant's contention that the court failed to make an appropriate inquiry into his complaints concerning defense counsel and in response to his request for new counsel. We conclude that the court made the requisite “ ‘minimal inquiry’ ” into defendant's reasons for requesting new counsel (People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283). Indeed, the record establishes that “the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning [defense counsel], and ... thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant's ... objections had no merit or substance” (People v. Singletary, 63 A.D.3d 1654, 1654, 880 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 839, 890 N.Y.S.2d 455, 918 N.E.2d 970 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Walker, 114 A.D.3d 1257, 1258, 980 N.Y.S.2d 216, lv. denied23 N.Y.3d 1044, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, N.E.3d –––– [July 24, 2014] ). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the negotiated sentence is unduly harsh and severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.