From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miranda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1997
243 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 14, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.),


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the defendant's request that his assigned counsel be relieved and properly denied his application to appoint a new counsel since he failed to demonstrate good cause for the substitution ( see, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824-825; People v. Outlaw, 184 A.D.2d 665; People v. Gloster, 175 A.D.2d 258, 260). Furthermore, a review of the record reveals that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-148).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court complied with the mandates of Penal Law § 70.10 (2) and adequately set forth on the record its reasons for sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender ( cf., People v. Gaines, 136 A.D.2d 731).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.

Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Miranda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 1997
243 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Miranda

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIGUEL MIRANDA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 14, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 507

Citing Cases

Miranda v. Bennett

The State opposed the petition, arguing that Miranda's claims were procedurally barred, lacked merit, had…

Rudenko v. Costello

It then said, "The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or…