Legal Opinion

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 20, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The trial court did not deprive defendant of his constitutional right to counsel and to properly prepare a defense when it denied his eve of trial pro se motion to relieve his second appointed counsel and to substitute new counsel. An indigent criminal defendant must demonstrate “good cause” for the appointment of substitute counsel, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict, and is not entitled to the appointment of successive lawyers at his or her option (People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]). There were no allegations in defendant’s pro se motion that would require…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. People v. BeneventoNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. People v. CabanNew York Court of Appeals · 2005

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. NewtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  2. People v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  3. People v. MosesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API