Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Phillip CAMPBELL, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered June 6, 2006, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the third degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not denied his right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing by the trial court's refusal to adjourn the trial. “[A]bsent exigent or compelling circumstances, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, deny a defendant's request to substitute counsel made on the eve of or during trial, if the defendant has been accorded a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of his own choosing before that time” (People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 271, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282, 401 N.E.2d 393; see People v. Gjelaj, 46 A.D.3d 911, 912, 848 N.Y.S.2d 350; People v. Goodwine, 46 A.D.3d 702, 848 N.Y.S.2d 243; People v. Hansen, 37 A.D.3d 318, 830 N.Y.S.2d 536). Here, the defendant had ample opportunity to retain counsel of his own choosing before that time, and failed to demonstrate that the requested adjournment was necessitated by forces beyond his control and was not a dilatory tactic (see People v. Grigg, 299 A.D.2d 367, 749 N.Y.S.2d 159; People v. Brown, 277 A.D.2d 246, 716 N.Y.S.2d 322).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court considered improper factors in imposing sentence (see People v. Harrison, 82 N.Y.2d 693, 694, 601 N.Y.S.2d 573, 619 N.E.2d 651; People v. Gonzalez, 43 A.D.3d 827, 828, 843 N.Y.S.2d 632; People v. Santos-Mispas, 38 A.D.3d 923, 831 N.Y.S.2d 344; People v. Leon, 19 A.D.3d 509, 510, 797 N.Y.S.2d 525). In any event, this contention is without merit, and the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 23, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)