Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. THOMAS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Jun 10, 2005
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Contrary to his contention, defendant did not demonstrate good cause for a substitution of counsel ( see People v. Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 511-512; see generally People v. Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824; People v. Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 209). County Court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for such relief ( see People v. Hilken, 6 AD3d 1109, 1110, lv denied 3 NY3d 641; People v. Welch, 307 AD2d 776, 777, lv denied 100 NY2d 625). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.