Opinion
March 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.).
Defendant, who was tried for selling a quantity of "crack" to an undercover officer, waived his right to counsel at trial, because he did not want to be represented by Legal Aid and was refused the appointment of substitute counsel. Before substitute counsel will be appointed, defendant must show "`good cause'", as the right to counsel "is not to be equated with a right to choice of assigned counsel". (People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178.) Defendant did not establish the necessity to substitute counsel, either by his general complaints, or by a misunderstanding between him and his attorney about the number of witnesses the People would present at the hearing.
Furthermore, defendant's request to appear pro se was unequivocal and timely. Defendant was apprised on several occasions of the risks he assumed by proceeding pro se, and was always given the opportunity to accept the representation of counsel. However, his counsel was directed to remain available. In view of defendant's educational and employment background, it is submitted that the court's instructions of the perils of defendant representing himself was more than adequate to ensure that defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary. (People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10, 17.)
The Court did not err in denying defendant's request for a Wade hearing, since the undercover officer's identification of defendant a short time after the "buy" was confirmatory and constitutes proper completion of an integral police procedure. (People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921.)
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.