People v. Whitfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whitfield

275 A.D.2d 1034, 713 N.Y.S.2d 584, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9700

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1034 (People v. Whitfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Whitfield, 275 A.D.2d 1034, 713 N.Y.S.2d 584, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.15 [2]) and conspiracy in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 105.10 [1]) in connection with the robbery of the mini-mart where he was employed. County Court did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to counsel by denying defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel on the day of the trial. Defense counsel advised the court that he acknowledged defendant’s right to waive a jury trial, but that he disagreed with defendant’s decision as a matter of trial strategy, and defendant requested new counsel because of that disagreement. Defendant did not provide the court with any further explanation. Thus, the court properly determined that defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for substitution of counsel (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19, rearg dismissed 57 NY2d 776, cert denied 459 US 1178; People v Anthony, 270 AD2d 837; People v Tucker, 261 AD2d 877, 878, lv denied 94 NY2d 830).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to recuse itself on the ground that the court had presided when two codefendants entered guilty pleas. “Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal. * * * When the alleged impropriety arises from information derived during the performance of the court’s adjudicatory function, then recusal could surely not be directed as a matter of law. A court’s decision in this respect may not be overturned unless it was an abuse of discretion” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406), and here there was no abuse of discretion (see, People v Bennett, 238 AD2d 898, 899-900, lv denied 90 NY2d 855, 890, cert denied 524 US 918).

Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Seneca County Court, Bender, J.— Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.15 [2]) and conspiracy in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 105.10 [1]) in connection with the robbery of the mini-mart where he was employed. County Court did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to counsel by denying defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel on the day of the trial. Defense counsel advised the court that he acknowledged defendant’s right to waive a jury trial, but that he disagreed with defendant’s decision as a matter of trial strategy, and defendant requested new counsel because of that disagreement. Defendant did not provide the court with any further explanation. Thus, the court properly determined that defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for substitution of counsel (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19, rearg dismissed 57 NY2d 776, cert denied 459 US 1178; People v Anthony, 270 AD2d 837; People v Tucker, 261 AD2d 877, 878, lv denied 94 NY2d 830).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to recuse itself on the ground that the court had presided when two codefendants entered guilty pleas. “Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal. * * * When the alleged impropriety arises from information derived during the performance of the court’s adjudicatory function, then recusal could surely not be directed as a matter of law. A court’s decision in this respect may not be overturned unless it was an abuse of discretion” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406), and here there was no abuse of discretion (see, People v Bennett, 238 AD2d 898, 899-900, lv denied 90 NY2d 855, 890, cert denied 524 US 918).

Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Seneca County Court, Bender, J.— Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1034, 713 N.Y.S.2d 584, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whitfield-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack