From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jessup

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted September 27, 1999

November 8, 1999

Scott Brettschneider, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Alyson J. Gill, and Sandra Burgos of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered January 21, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's denial of defense counsel's request to be relieved did not violate his constitutional rights. Although an indigent defendant has a right to a court-appointed attorney, he does not have the right to his choice of assigned counsel (see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207 ; People v. Rua, 198 A.D.2d 311, 312 ). The decision to appoint new counsel is within the trial court's discretion (see, People v. Rua, supra). The request, made immediately prior to opening statements, failed to establish good cause for a substitution of counsel. The defendant refused to respond to the court's further inquiry. Any communication problem between counsel and the defendant was caused by the defendant's uncooperative attitude and, nevertheless, defense counsel provided effective representation and was able to conduct a meaningful defense. Under the circumstances, the court did not err in denying the request (see, People v. Bailey, 224 A.D.2d 435 ; People v. Rua, supra).

The sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see,People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, SANTUCCI, and ALTMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jessup

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Jessup

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. KELVIN JESSUP, appellant. (Ind. No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 8, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 42

Citing Cases

People v. Sanchez

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the County Court properly…

People v. Johnson

When the court conducted the appropriate inquiry into the basis for defendant's request for substitution (…