PEOPLE v. SEGURA (2009)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.41[1] ), defendant contends that he was denied his right to an attorney of his own choosing when County Court removed his attorney based on a conflict of interest.   According to defendant, the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry before determining that he could not be represented by an attorney who also represented another individual in connection with a separate, but related, indictment.   We reject that contention.   The inquiry conducted by the court established that the other individual was charged with conspiracy and that one of the overt acts alleged in that indictment was the sale by this defendant of a controlled substance to an undercover officer.   We agree with the court that “the attorney could not represent both defendant and another criminal defendant against whom defendant was a potential prosecution witness” (People v. Jones, 2 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 768 N.Y.S.2d 881, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 742, 746, 778 N.Y.S.2d 467, 471, 810 N.E.2d 920, 924).   We therefore conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and properly determined that “ ‘continued representation of defendant by [the] attorney would create an actual conflict of interest’ ” (People v. Rufus, 56 A.D.3d 1175, 1175, 867 N.Y.S.2d 608, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 930, 874 N.Y.S.2d 15, 902 N.E.2d 449).

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

MEMORANDUM: