PEOPLE v. MCCLOUD (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard Sturim, J.), rendered March 4, 2022, convicting him of assault in the second degree (four counts), resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for substitution of counsel.  “ ‘The right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at [the] defendant's option’ ” (People v. Graham, 188 A.D.3d 909, 909, 135 N.Y.S.3d 410, quoting People v. Washington, 25 N.Y.3d 1091, 1095, 13 N.Y.S.3d 343, 34 N.E.3d 853;  see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233).  Whether substitution of counsel is permitted is “within the discretion and responsibility of the trial judge,” and a “complaining defendant must make specific factual allegations of serious complaints about counsel” (People v. Fulgencio, 168 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 92 N.Y.S.3d 370 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 99–100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283;  People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d at 824–825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233;  People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768).  “Where a seemingly serious request is made, the trial court is obligated to conduct at least a minimal inquiry to determine the nature of the conflict and a possible resolution” (People v. Parker, 194 A.D.3d 847, 848, 143 N.Y.S.3d 899 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Graham, 188 A.D.3d at 910, 135 N.Y.S.3d 410;  People v. Ward, 121 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 994 N.Y.S.2d 675).

“ ‘[B]efore substitution of counsel is granted, good cause, such as a conflict of interest or irreconcilable differences, must be demonstrated’ ” (People v. Ayuso, 80 A.D.3d 708, 709, 915 N.Y.S.2d 149, quoting People v. Martin, 41 A.D.3d 616, 616, 838 N.Y.S.2d 166).  “In determining whether good cause has been shown, relevant factors include ‘the timing of the defendant's request, its effect on the progress of the case, and whether ․ counsel will likely provide the defendant with meaningful assistance’ ” (People v. Ayuso, 80 A.D.3d at 709, 915 N.Y.S.2d 149, quoting People v. Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 510, 780 N.Y.S.2d 529, 813 N.E.2d 609).

Here, “ ‘even assuming, arguendo, that [the] defendant's complaints about defense counsel suggested a serious possibility of good cause for a substitution of counsel requiring a need for further inquiry ․ the [Supreme Court] afforded [the] defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning defense counsel’ ” and subsequently, reasonably concluded that his objections were without merit (People v. Milonovich, 215 A.D.3d 764, 765–766, 185 N.Y.S.3d 713, quoting People v. Bethany, 144 A.D.3d 1666, 1669, 42 N.Y.S.3d 495 [alterations omitted]).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur.