People v. Plato

Oct 3, 2005
Reporters:
,

Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant‘s motion ‍​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‍for the substitution of counsel since the defendant failed to show good cause for the substitution, and the circumstances demonstrated that the application was made merely as a dilatory tactic (see People v Robinson, 285 AD2d 478 [2001]; People v Brown, 253 AD2d 826 [1998]).

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the mere fact that the resentence ‍​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‍imposed after trial was greater than that offered during plea negotiations was no indication that the defendant was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial (see People v Carillo, 297 AD2d 288, 289 [2002]; People v Bellilli, 270 AD2d 355 [2000]). Further, the Supreme Court properly considered all relevant circumstances before imposing resentence (see People ‍​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‍v Medina, 140 AD2d 549, 550 [1988]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.

Florio, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.