THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. TREVEON GATES DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his complaints about defense counsel. A court's duty to consider a motion to substitute counsel “is invoked only where a defendant makes a seemingly serious request[ ]” for new counsel (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]). Thus, where a defendant makes “specific factual allegations” against defense counsel (Porto, 16 NY3d at 100), the court must make at least “some minimal inquiry” to determine whether the defendant's claims are meritorious (Sides, 75 NY2d at 825; see People v Smith, 18 NY3d 588, 592-593 [2012]). Upon conducting that inquiry, the court may substitute counsel “only where ‘good cause’ is shown” (Porto, 16 NY3d at 100; see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]).

Here, defendant “failed to proffer specific allegations of a ‘seemingly serious request’ that would require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry” (Porto, 16 NY3d at 100; see People v Fredericks, 43 NY3d 551, 558 [2025], rearg denied 43 NY3d 1014 [2025]; People v Morris, 183 AD3d 1254, 1255 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1047 [2020]). Rather, defendant made only vague assertions that he had not received discovery and that counsel did not have his “best interest.” In any event, we conclude that the court “conducted the requisite minimal inquiry to determine whether substitution of counsel was warranted” (People v Jackson, 202 AD3d 1447, 1448 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 951 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The record establishes that the court “allowed defendant to air his concerns about defense counsel, and ․ reasonably concluded that defendant's vague and generic objections had no merit or substance” (People v Fulton, 210 AD3d 1436, 1438 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1154 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Lathrop, 175 AD3d 920, 921 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 982 [2019]; People v Graham, 153 AD3d 1634, 1635 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1060 [2017]).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing sua sponte to order a competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30 (1). “[A] defendant in a criminal proceeding is presumed to be competent ․, and [t]he determination whether to order a competency examination, either sua sponte or upon defense counsel's request, lies within the sound discretion of the court” (People v Houle, 236 AD3d 1296, 1296 [4th Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Robinson, 225 AD3d 1266, 1267 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1021 [2024]). It is only when “the court wherein the criminal action is pending ․ is of the opinion that the defendant may be an incapacitated person” that it must order a competency evaluation (CPL 730.30 [1]; see People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765-766 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999]). Although the record here establishes that defendant had a history of mental health issues, that did not by itself call into question defendant's competence (see Tortorici, 92 NY2d at 765; People v Shannon, 189 AD3d 2165, 2166 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1100 [2021]). There is no indication in the record that defendant “ ‘was unable to understand the proceedings or that he was mentally incompetent’ ” (Houle, 236 AD3d at 1297; see Robinson, 225 AD3d at 1267), and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte order a competency examination (see People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]).

Finally, we reject defendant's contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: October 2, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court