Opinion
April 22, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Furthermore, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for substitution of counsel (see, People v. Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178; People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264). The defendant's request was made after the commencement of trial (People v. Arroyave, supra, at 271-272), and he did not demonstrate sufficient good cause to warrant substitution (see, People v. Sawyer, supra, at 19; People v. Rodriguez, 126 A.D.2d 580).
Similarly, the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The imposition of consecutive sentences for each conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and for bail jumping in the second degree was appropriate under the circumstances of this case, as the offenses charged constituted separate and distinct acts (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839). Moreover, there was no impropriety in the imposition of an aggregate maximum term of 76 years. Since the defendant was convicted of four crimes, at least one of which was a class B felony, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (c) (i), this aggregate maximum term must be deemed 30 years (see, People v. Moore, 61 N.Y.2d 575; People v. Bachman, 158 A.D.2d 930). Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.