The basis for petitioner's habeas corpus application was the alleged failure of the People to be ready for trial within the time limitations of CPL 30.30 (2) (a) and the allegedly excessive amount of his bail. Given that the specific relief requested by petitioner was release on reduced bail or on his own recognizance, his subsequent guilty plea has rendered this appeal moot (see, People ex rel. Griffin v Warden, 40 A.D.2d 859). Were we to consider the merits, we would find that petitioner's criminal record, the serious nature of the offense and the potential sentence involved establish a constitutionally rational basis for the original bail determination (see, People v Wolcott, 111 A.D.2d 943). Further, petitioner concedes that the People made a timely announcement of readiness and nothing in the record supports petitioner's conclusory allegations that the People had made that announcement in bad faith or that the People were not continuously ready for trial (see, People v McCann, 149 A.D.2d 814, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 743). Finally, in view of the relative simplicity of petitioner's contentions, their lack of merit and petitioner's indication that he did not want legal representation, it cannot be said that Supreme Court abused its discretion in failing to assign counsel (see, People ex rel. Williams v La Vallee, 19 N.Y.2d 238).
Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.