People v Winter

Annotate this Case
People v Winter 2011 NY Slip Op 07248 Decided on October 11, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 11, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2010-00404
(Ind. No. 5037/08)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Jamal Winter, appellant.



 
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of
counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove and Camille O'Hara
Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.

 
DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered January 5, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to relieve assigned counsel. After conducting a sufficient inquiry, the Supreme Court discredited the defendant's allegations that there had been a complete breakdown of communication and trust in his relationship with counsel, a determination we decline to disturb (cf. People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court's conclusions that the purpose of the motion was merely to delay the proceedings, and that assigned counsel was reasonably likely to provide the defendant with effective assistance (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510; People v Ayuso, 80 AD3d 708, 709). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.