PEOPLE v. LAWRENCE (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06[5] ).   Defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to conduct an appropriate inquiry into her request for assignment of new counsel.  “Contrary to the contention of defendant, [her] allegations did not establish a serious complaint concerning defense counsel's representation and thus did not suggest a serious possibility of good cause for substitution [of counsel]” (People v. Randle [Appeal No. 2], 21 A.D.3d 1341, 1341, 801 N.Y.S.2d 188 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Schojan, 272 A.D.2d 932, 933, 709 N.Y.S.2d 273, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 871, 715 N.Y.S.2d 226, 738 N.E.2d 374;  People v. Frayer, 215 A.D.2d 862, 863, 627 N.Y.S.2d 107, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 794, 632 N.Y.S.2d 507, 656 N.E.2d 606;  see generally People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233).

 We reject the further contention of defendant that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.   With respect to defendant's complaints that defense counsel failed to investigate the case properly and failed to interview a potential witness, those complaints “ ‘involve[ ] matters dehors the record, which are not reviewable on this direct appeal’ ” (People v. Nichols, 21 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 801 N.Y.S.2d 665;  see People v. Prince, 5 A.D.3d 1098, 1098-1099, 773 N.Y.S.2d 325, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 804, 781 N.Y.S.2d 304, 814 N.E.2d 476).   Defendant's remaining complaints concerning defense counsel's representation are based on disagreements with trial tactics, and defendant has failed to establish the absence of any legitimate explanation for defense counsel's decisions (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712-713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19;  see also People v. Dennis, 206 A.D.2d 843, 844, 616 N.Y.S.2d 121, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 867, 618 N.Y.S.2d 12, 642 N.E.2d 331).   Therefore, based on “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation,” we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: