People v. Okolo

Dec 22, 2006
Reporters:
,

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel when defense counsel took a position adverse to him during Supreme Court‘s inquiry into his request for substitution of counsel. Defense counsel‘s “brief defense of [her] own performance, made in response to an inquiry from the court, did not create a prejudicial conflict” (People v Walton, 14 AD3d 419, 420 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 796 [2005]). Thus, contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not “deprived of his right to conflict-free representation” (id.). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). That waiver encompasses defendant‘s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]) and, in any event, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.