PEOPLE v. BURGOS

Defendant was not entitled to the assignment of new counsel in connection with his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. While defense counsel's brief, volunteered statement was adverse to his client's position, it merely pointed out matters already in the record and could not have influenced the court's decision to deny defendant's application (see People v. Benitez, 290 A.D.2d 363, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 673). It is clear that the court denied this patently meritless application solely on the basis of its own recollection of the record. This was not a situation where the court deemed it necessary to elicit facts outside the record from defense counsel in order to decide the plea withdrawal motion (compare People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712). Accordingly, there was no conflict of interest requiring substitution of counsel (see Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-350).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.