Opinion
2011-11-29
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Willie THOMPSON, appellant.
David A. Brodsky, Central Valley, N.Y., for appellant. *614 Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
David A. Brodsky, Central Valley, N.Y., for appellant. *614 Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered October 9, 2009, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to his contention on appeal, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest. “A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest must do more than show that defense counsel had a potential conflict of interest[,] [and in order] [t]o prevail, the defendant must establish that the conflict of interest affected the conduct of his or her defense” ( People v. Guadmuz, 63 A.D.3d 1178, 1178, 881 N.Y.S.2d 314; see People v. Abar, 99 N.Y.2d 406, 757 N.Y.S.2d 219, 786 N.E.2d 1255; People v. Longtin, 92 N.Y.2d 640, 684 N.Y.S.2d 463, 707 N.E.2d 418, cert. denied 526 U.S. 1114, 119 S.Ct. 1760, 143 L.Ed.2d 791). Here, the defendant failed to make such a showing ( see People v. Jordan, 83 N.Y.2d 785, 610 N.Y.S.2d 952, 632 N.E.2d 1275). Nor was the defendant otherwise deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883).
The defendant further contends that, at the hearing to determine his status as a persistent felony offender ( see CPL 400.20), the court improperly admitted the testimony of a probation officer to whom he made admissions about a 1973 robbery conviction during a pre-sentence interview. We conclude that the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of this testimony since there was ample independent evidence to establish his conviction of the subject felony. Accordingly, the defendant was properly adjudicated a persistent felony offender ( see CPL 400.20; Penal Law § 70.10[1][a] ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.