People v. LaValle

New York Court of Appeals

People v. LaValle

770 N.E.2d 1004, 97 N.Y.2d 721, 744 N.Y.S.2d 114, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 216

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 770 N.E.2d 1004 (People v. LaValle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. LaValle, 770 N.E.2d 1004, 97 N.Y.2d 721, 744 N.Y.S.2d 114, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 216 (N.Y. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[722]*722OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Defendant’s motion for (1) reconsideration of this Court’s prior denial of his request for new counsel, (2) appointment of new counsel, and “in the alternative, if new counsel is not assigned,” (3) change of lead counsel within the Capital Defender’s Office, should be denied. Defendant has failed to present particularized allegations that his assigned counsel will be ineffective owing to an irreconcilable conflict with him, so as to warrant an evidentiary hearing or a change in assigned counsel. As we have previously noted, “good appellate practice might require a retained attorney to take a different approach from that urged by the client when experience has proven that the attorney’s approach is in the client’s best interest” (People v White, 73 NY2d 468, 479). This rationale also holds true for a defendant represented by assigned counsel (see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 751-754). Moreover, this Court’s decision to allow defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief insures that all issues defendant wishes to argue will, in fact, be before the Court for its consideration.

Motion for (1) reconsideration of appellant’s prior request for new counsel, which was denied by this Court, (2) appointment of new counsel, and “in the alternative, if new counsel is not assigned,” (3) change of lead counsel within the Capital Defender’s Office, denied in each respect, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[722]*722OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Defendant’s motion for (1) reconsideration of this Court’s prior denial of his request for new counsel, (2) appointment of new counsel, and “in the alternative, if new counsel is not assigned,” (3) change of lead counsel within the Capital Defender’s Office, should be denied. Defendant has failed to present particularized allegations that his assigned counsel will be ineffective owing to an irreconcilable conflict with him, so as to warrant an evidentiary hearing or a change in assigned counsel. As we have previously noted, “good appellate practice might require a retained attorney to take a different approach from that urged by the client when experience has proven that the attorney’s approach is in the client’s best interest” (People v White, 73 NY2d 468, 479). This rationale also holds true for a defendant represented by assigned counsel (see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 751-754). Moreover, this Court’s decision to allow defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief insures that all issues defendant wishes to argue will, in fact, be before the Court for its consideration.

Motion for (1) reconsideration of appellant’s prior request for new counsel, which was denied by this Court, (2) appointment of new counsel, and “in the alternative, if new counsel is not assigned,” (3) change of lead counsel within the Capital Defender’s Office, denied in each respect, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 N.E.2d 1004, 97 N.Y.2d 721, 744 N.Y.S.2d 114, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lavalle-ny-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack