SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

149 

KA 11-00484 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BOBBY JOHNSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (COURTNEY E. PETTIT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W.

Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered August 21, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree

(three counts), robbery in the first degree (nine counts), reckless

endangerment in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child

and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (two counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, three counts of burglary in the

second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [1] [a], [c], [d]), and nine counts

of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [2], [3], [4]). Contrary to

defendant’s contention, County Court properly exercised its discretion

in denying his motion for new assigned counsel on the morning of the

commencement of trial inasmuch as defendant failed to establish good

cause for a substitution of counsel (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507,

511). The court conducted the requisite inquiry when defendant made

his oral request for substitution of counsel and concluded that

defendant’s objections were without merit (see People v Stilts, 86

AD3d 927, 928, lv denied 18 NY3d 886; see generally People v Sides, 75

NY2d 822, 825). Good cause does not exist where, as here, “on the eve

of trial, disagreements over trial strategy generate discord”

(Linares, 2 NY3d at 511).

We reject defendant’s further contention that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to demonstrate

that defense counsel’s decision not to pursue the affirmative defense

of mental disease or defect pursuant to Penal Law § 40.15 was not the

result of a “ ‘well-advised defense strategy’ ” (People v Skinner, 224

AD2d 916, 916, quoting People v Ford, 46 NY2d 1021, 1023; see

generally People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152). Viewing the evidence, the
-2- 149 

KA 11-00484 

law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time

of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful

representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). 

Defendant’s contention that the court erred in bifurcating the

jury instructions over two days is not preserved for our review

because he failed to make a timely objection thereto (see People v

Miller, 59 AD3d 463, 464, lv denied 12 NY3d 856; People v Graham, 228

AD2d 299, 299, lv denied 88 NY2d 985; People v Williams, 206 AD2d 917,

917, lv denied 84 NY2d 911). We reject defendant’s contention that

the bifurcation of the jury instructions is a mode of proceedings

error that does not require preservation. Defendant’s reliance on

People v Fujah (182 AD2d 774, 775) is misplaced because in that case

there was a violation of CPL 260.30 when the jury instructions were

provided before the parties’ summations, whereas here there was no

such violation. We decline to exercise our power to review

defendant’s contention concerning the bifurcated jury instructions as

a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]

[a]).

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court