Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Miranda

People v. Miranda, 243 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1997)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1997-10-14
Topic
litigation

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), rendered November 1, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the defendant’s request that his assigned counsel be relieved and properly denied his application to appoint a new counsel since he failed to demonstrate good cause for the substitution (see, *585People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825; People v Outlaw, 184 AD2d 665; People v Gloster, 175 AD2d 258, 260). Furthermore, a review of the record reveals that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-148). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court complied with the mandates of Penal Law § 70.10 (2) and adequately set forth on the record its reasons for sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender (cf., People v Gaines, 136 AD2d 731).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Miranda. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), rendered November 1, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the defendant’s request that his assigned counsel be relieved and properly denied his application to appoint a new counsel since he failed to demonstrate good cause for the substitution (see, *585 People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825; People v Outlaw, 184 AD2d 665; People v Gloster, 175 AD2d 258, 260). Furthermore, a review of the record reveals that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-148).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court complied with the mandates of Penal Law § 70.10 (2) and adequately set forth on the record its reasons for sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender (cf., People v Gaines, 136 AD2d 731).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ;, concur.