People v Johnson

People v Johnson 2014 NY Slip Op 02612 Decided on April 16, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 16, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
SANDRA L. SGROI
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
2011-08208
(Ind. No. 3840/10)

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

v

Tawanna Johnson, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for
appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y.
(Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara
Gillespie, and Thomas John Wright
of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered August 16, 2011, convicting her of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court discharged potential jurors based upon hardship without conducting a sufficient inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v King, 110 AD3d 1005, 1006; People v Umana, 76 AD3d 1111, 1112; People v Casanova, 62 AD3d 88, 92; People v Toussaint, 40 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Umana, 76 AD3d at 1112; People v Toussaint, 40 AD3d at 1017-1018).

In addition, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying her requests to relieve her appointed counsel and to substitute new counsel. Even if the defendant's requests were "sufficiently specific to require a minimal inquiry by the court" (People v Percer, 90 AD3d 789, 790 [internal quotation marks omitted]), the court engaged in a minimal inquiry upon the defendant's requests for new counsel, in the course of which the defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of good cause for granting her requests (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99; People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
MASTRO, J.P., LOTT, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court