People v. SmithPeople v. Smith
Crew III, J. P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered September 19, 1995, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimе of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
In March 1995, defendant was an inmate at Franklin Cor-. rectional Facility in Franklin Cоunty when, during the course of a routine pat frisk, he pulled an approximately eight-inch long metal rod from his pocket and turned it over to сorrection officers. As a result of this incident, an indictment was returned against defendant charging him with a single count of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced to a term of l1/2 to 3 years’ imprisonment tо run consecutively to the term he had been serving at the time this judgment was rеndered. This appeal followed.
Defendant’s principal cоntention on appeal is his claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing due tо County Court’s failure to make inquiries concerning an apparent disаgreement between defendant and his assigned counsel. Assuming, without deciding, that this issue is properly before us despite defendant’s waiver of his right to аppeal his conviction, we nevertheless conclude that the argument is lacking in merit.
The law is clear that while "the right of an indigent criminal defendant to the services of a court-appointed lawyer dоes not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at
Instead, the record demonstratеs that before defendant was formally arraigned on the indictment, County Court noted the presence of defendant’s assigned counsel in the сourtroom and asked defendant if he was his attorney and whether he rеpresented him. Defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with defensе counsel but stated only, "Well, at this time, your Honor, I haven’t decided if I’m going tо keep him as my attorney.” Thereafter, when defendant ultimately pleaded guilty, defense counsel stated to the court that defendant was following his advice in pleading guilty but he wished to inform the court that: "under differеnt circumstances [defendant] would have been happier with a diffеrent attorney, but he understands that should I not be the attorney involved, then he would not be entitled to another attorney being appointed fоr him being that there’s no conflict in interest” (emphasis supplied). Significantly, these comments do not even directly indicate the presence of a disagreement and could mеan nothing more than defendant wished to hire an attorney he could not afford due to his indigency. Thus, in the absence of a legitimate comрlaint about counsel’s performance, much less a request for a substitute, we cannot conclude based upon defendant’s bald statements on appeal that County Court committed reversible error in failing to make further inquiries of defendant (see, People v Herr, supra, at 1033).
White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.