Opinion
KA 03-02170.
June 10, 2005.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (James R. Harvey, J.), rendered June 19, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
DAVID M. PARKS, ITHACA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Before: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Smith, JJ.
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.