People v. Yeung
Opinion of the Court
Judgment, Supreme
It is not difficult to understand why defendant now seeks an opportunity to undo his decision to forgo a generous plea offer which would have required him to inculpate his accomplices. Defendant fails, however, to establish that his counsel provided ineffective assistance or in any way denied or hindered his right to take advantage of the People’s plea offer. The trial court properly denied defendant’s applications to substitute counsel inasmuch as there was no demonstration of good cause for such request.
Defendant’s arguments concerning the jury charge are not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jackson, 76 NY2d 908; People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836), and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the charge, viewed as a whole, properly informed the jury of the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831-832). Finally, we perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing (People v Junco, 43 AD2d 266, affd 35 NY2d 419, cert denied 421 US 951). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.