Summary
In People v Hoff, 201 AD2d 953, 953-54 [4th Dept. 1994], the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that the defendant's claim "that he could no longer communicate with his attorney and that he was concerned about defense counsel's recommendation to accept a plea offer" was legally insufficient to warrant substitution of counsel.
Summary of this case from People v. TullyOpinion
February 4, 1994
Appeal from the Seneca County Court, Marks, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention that the trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to allow defense counsel to withdraw is without merit. Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing good cause for a substitution of counsel "such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel" (People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824). Defendant contends that he could no longer communicate with his attorney and that he was concerned about defense counsel's recommendation to accept a plea offer. Those contentions are insufficient (see, People v. Willis, 147 A.D.2d 727, 728, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 670; People v. Thornton, 167 A.D.2d 935, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1082).
We further conclude that the People have satisfied their obligation under CPL 30.30 (see, People v. Giordano, 56 N.Y.2d 524, 525). Under the circumstances, defendant's sentence as a persistent felony offender was not harsh or excessive. We have considered the remaining contentions, including those raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit.