From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Batts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 21, 1992
186 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 21, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to raise any objection to the adequacy of his plea allocution in the court of first instance, and, accordingly, has not preserved his claims for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Nicastro, 114 A.D.2d 979). In any event, the record reveals that the defendant "was represented by counsel, that he discussed his plea with the court, that he understood that he was waiving a jury trial and the meaning of the guilty plea, and that he wished to plead guilty and acknowledged the facts of his offense" (People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 21).

The defendant moved to replace a Legal Aid Society attorney with an attorney on the 18-B Panel, arguing that his Legal Aid attorney did not have enough felony trial experience. The defendant contends that because the court refused to grant the motion he was "coerced" into pleading guilty. We disagree. While an indigent defendant has a right to a court-appointed lawyer, he does not have the right to his choice of assigned counsel (see, People v Willis, 147 A.D.2d 727), or to a lawyer whose qualifications meet the defendant's precise specifications. Where, as here, the defendant's request for new counsel is "based on conclusory and unsubstantiated remarks concerning assigned counsel's performance", the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's application without a hearing (People v Amezquita, 155 A.D.2d 278).

In addition, the defendant, who had prior experience with criminal proceedings (see, People v Meegan, 59 A.D.2d 576), was afforded a two-week adjournment by the court to reflect on the terms of the plea agreement (see, People v Esajerre, 43 A.D.2d 541, affd 35 N.Y.2d 463), and received the sentence that he bargained for (see, People v Wilder, 124 A.D.2d 846, 848; People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816), which was also the minimum sentence allowable by law. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Batts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 21, 1992
186 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Batts

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RONALD BATTS, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 21, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 49

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. There was no error in the court sentencing the defendant in the…

People v. Sutton

We reject Simmons's claim that he was denied effective counsel because the court failed to assign him what he…