People v. Lewis (Shanell)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lewis (Shanell)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 22, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50586(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Lewis (Shanell) (People v. Lewis (Shanell)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Lewis (Shanell), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shanell Lewis, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered November 4, 2013, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered November 4, 2013, affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's day-of-trial request for a continuance to confer with private counsel about the People's plea offer (see People v O'Daniel, 24 NY3d 134, 138 [2014]; People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271 [1980]). Defendant, who had been represented by assigned counsel for over two years without any indication of a problem with that representation, did not establish that she was not accorded a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of her own choosing before that time (see People v Wesley, 134 AD3d 964 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016]), or any other"exigent or compelling circumstances" warranting a late adjournment (People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d at 271; see People v Ceballos, 167 AD3d 497 [2018]). Nor is there anything in the record to indicate what efforts defendant or her family made to hire or confer with an attorney, that they had the means to do so (see People v Bolar, 62 AD3d 537 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 923 [2009]; People v Velasquez, 48 AD3d 712 [2008]) or that the unnamed attorney would be ready to review the case without undue delay (see People v Ceballos, 167 AD3d at 497). We also note that the court granted defense counsel's request for a "third call," giving defendant time to consider the proposed offer (cf. People v Spears, 64 NY2d 698, 699-700 [1984]), which, as accepted by defendant, permitted her to plead guilty to second-degree harassment, a violation, in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument whose top count was third-degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00), a class A misdemeanor.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 22, 2019

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shanell Lewis, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered November 4, 2013, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered November 4, 2013, affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's day-of-trial request for a continuance to confer with private counsel about the People's plea offer (see People v O'Daniel, 24 NY3d 134, 138 [2014]; People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 271 [1980]). Defendant, who had been represented by assigned counsel for over two years without any indication of a problem with that representation, did not establish that she was not accorded a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of her own choosing before that time (see People v Wesley, 134 AD3d 964 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016]), or any other"exigent or compelling circumstances" warranting a late adjournment (People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d at 271; see People v Ceballos, 167 AD3d 497 [2018]). Nor is there anything in the record to indicate what efforts defendant or her family made to hire or confer with an attorney, that they had the means to do so (see People v Bolar, 62 AD3d 537 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 923 [2009]; People v Velasquez, 48 AD3d 712 [2008]) or that the unnamed attorney would be ready to review the case without undue delay (see People v Ceballos, 167 AD3d at 497). We also note that the court granted defense counsel's request for a "third call," giving defendant time to consider the proposed offer (cf. People v Spears, 64 NY2d 698, 699-700 [1984]), which, as accepted by defendant, permitted her to plead guilty to second-degree harassment, a violation, in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument whose top count was third-degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00), a class A misdemeanor.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 22, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Lewis (Shanell), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lewis-shanell-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack