PEOPLE v. DAVIS

Defendant's bald assertions that he lacked confidence in his assigned counsel were insufficient to establish the "[g]ood cause" necessary to entitle him to new counsel ( People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 19, cert denied 459 US 1178), as was his apparent disagreement with counsel's trial strategy ( see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208). While an indigent defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, there is no right to successive counsel ( see, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824). Although the trial court did not engage in a lengthy question and answer session with defendant, defendant was allowed to state his reasons five times orally, as well as in his written motion, a process which appropriately enabled the court to ascertain the grounds for defendant's motion and to determine that good cause was lacking.