People v. Boyer

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Boyer

    19 A.D.3d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The People thereafter filed a predicate felony offender statement citing defendant's 1984 prior nonviolent felony conviction, and defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 5½ to 11 years imprisonment. Defendant appealed that conviction and we affirmed ( 237 AD2d 743, lv denied 90 NY2d 855). Having served his sentence for his 1994 burglary conviction, defendant thereafter was indicted in 2001 in Albany County and charged with, inter alia, attempted burglary in the second degree.

  2. People v. Boyer

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 68477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION Motion for writ of error coram nobis to vacate memorandum and order of this Court in People v Boyer (237 AD2d 743 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 855 [1997]). Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

  3. People v. Sturdevant

    74 A.D.3d 1491 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 21 times

    Defendant's right to counsel was not violated by Supreme Court's denial of his request for a new assigned attorney. Such a request should be granted upon a showing of good cause, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable differences ( see People v Dunton, 19 AD3d 808, 808-809, lv denied 5 NY3d 805; People v Boyer, 237 AD2d 743, 744, lv denied 90 NY2d 855). Defendant's trial counsel asked to be removed, stating that he did so at defendant's request and alleging that defendant had his own defense theories and strategies, had made multiple motions on his own behalf, and had apparently complained about counsel to the Committee on Professional Standards. We find that these differences resulted, essentially, from strategic disagreements ( see People v Tenace, 256 AD2d 928, 930, lv denied 93 NY2d 902) and from an antagonistic attitude on defendant's part ( see People v Brown, 62 AD3d 1089, 1092, lv denied 13 NY3d 742) and, therefore, did not require substitution.

  4. People v. Dunton

    19 A.D.3d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 7 times

    Defendant's claim that County Court did not address his pre-trial motion for reassignment of counsel until the time of his sentencing is belied by the record, which reflects that County Court resolved the matter three months before trial when it denied defendant's pro se request in this regard. In any event, the motion was properly denied as "[t]he law is now well established that a defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon a showing of good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel" ( People v. Boyer, 237 AD2d 743, 744, lv denied 90 NY2d 855; see People v. Frayer, 215 AD2d 862, 863, lv denied 86 NY2d 794). Here, defendant made no claim of a conflict of interest, nor did his motion, in which he expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney, "suggest a serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict between defendant and counsel" ( People v. Herr, 161 AD2d 1031, 1034; see People v. Taylor, 267 AD2d 717, 717, lv denied 94 NY2d 907; People v. Tenace, 256 AD2d 928, 930, lv denied 93 NY2d 902, cert denied 530 US 1217; People v. Gensicki, 123 AD2d 214, 215, lv denied 70 NY2d 646).

  5. People v. Campbell

    296 A.D.2d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

    County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he was compelled to plead guilty because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is supported only by defendant's testimony at a hearing held on the motion, and the court in its discretion was entitled to find that testimony to be incredible ( see People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485; see also People v. Boyer, 237 A.D.2d 743, 744, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 855; People v. Contreras, 219 A.D.2d 495, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 845). Indeed, defendant's testimony at the hearing is refuted by the record of the lengthy plea colloquy, wherein defendant indicated that he was satisfied with the representation of assigned counsel, denied being coerced, and asserted that he was acting voluntarily. Defense counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement and provided defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v. Rhodes, 251 A.D.2d 906, 906, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 929). Furthermore, the agreed-upon sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

  6. People v. Beekman

    280 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 5 times

    To the extent that defendant's claim raises an issue regarding the voluntariness of his plea, that issue has not been preserved for our review as a result of defendant's failure to move either to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment (see, e.g.,People v. Ferreri, 271 A.D.2d 805, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 834). To the extent that the claim is based upon the constitutional right to counsel of one's own choosing, and assuming without deciding that such a claim was not encompassed by defendant's waiver of the right to appeal (see,People v. Boyer, 237 A.D.2d 743, 744, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 855), the record does not support defendant's claim. During plea negotiations on the eve of trial, defendant apparently refused to speak to assigned counsel and made some comments about new counsel.