PEOPLE v. SOUTHALL

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maurice D. SOUTHALL, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: December 31, 2008

PRESENT:  MARTOCHE, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. David P. Elkovitch, Auburn, for Defendant-Appellant. Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for Respondent.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16[1], [12] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly denied his requests for substitution of counsel inasmuch as he failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause for substitution (see People v. Wilson, 38 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 832 N.Y.S.2d 726, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 853, 840 N.Y.S.2d 779, 872 N.E.2d 892;  see generally People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233).   Although defendant alleged during the proceedings that defense counsel had a conflict of interest, the court's inquiry into the matter established that no such conflict existed.   Also contrary to defendant's contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: