People v. JacksonPeople v. Jackson
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting
We reject defendant‘s contention that the court failed to make an appropriate inquiry into his complaints concerning defense counsel and in response to his request for new counsel. We conclude that the court made the requisite “minimal inquiry” into defendant‘s reasons for requesting new counsel (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 100 [2010]). Indeed, the record establishes that “the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning [defense counsel], and . . . thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant‘s . . . objections had no merit or substance” (People v Singletary, 63 AD3d 1654, 1654 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 839 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Walker, 114 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1044 [2014]). Finally, we reject defendant‘s contention that the negotiated sentence is unduly harsh and severe.
Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Carni and Valentino, JJ.