People v. Tineo, 64 N.Y.2d 531 (1985)

A trial court has broad discretion to deny a defendant’s request to reinstate previously retained counsel if a potential conflict of interest arises close to trial, especially when the original counsel requested to be relieved.

Summary

Jose Tineo was indicted for drug offenses. On the eve of trial, his retained attorney, Kenneth Linn, informed the court that he had previously represented the People’s confidential informant and sought to be relieved due to a potential conflict. The court granted the request. Three days later, Linn sought reinstatement, limiting cross-examination of the informant to the informant’s criminal record. The court denied reinstatement, citing potential trial delay and the vacillation of both defendant and counsel. Tineo, dissatisfied with assigned counsel, represented himself at trial, with assigned counsel as a legal advisor, and was convicted. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying reinstatement given the circumstances.

Facts

Defendant, Jose Tineo, was arrested in November 1978 and indicted on multiple drug-related charges. Prior to jury selection, Tineo sought to discharge his retained attorney, Kenneth Linn, claiming lack of cooperation. The court denied this motion, citing Linn’s preparedness and the timing of the request. On January 7, 1980, Linn informed the court that he had previously represented the People’s confidential informant who would testify at trial, creating a potential conflict of interest. The court “reluctantly” relieved Linn, to which Tineo did not object.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court, New York County, convicted Tineo. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting defense counsel’s motion to be relieved due to a conflict of interest.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel’s subsequent request for reinstatement.

Holding

1. The issue was not preserved for review, as defendant did not object to the original removal of his attorney.
2. No, because the trial court, acting on the eve of trial, did not abuse its discretion by considering judicial economy, the integrity of the criminal process, and the continuous vacillation of both the defendant and counsel.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals recognized the constitutional right to counsel of one’s choosing but emphasized that this right is not absolute once a criminal action has commenced. The court held that a request to change counsel is subject to the trial judge’s discretion, especially when the request could delay or obstruct proceedings. “That discretion is especially broad when the defendant’s actions with respect to counsel place the court in the dilemma of having to choose between undesirable alternatives, either one of which would theoretically provide the defendant with a basis for appellate review.”

The court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in both relieving Linn and denying his reinstatement. Linn himself asserted the potential for a conflict of interest, and Tineo did not initially object to Linn’s removal. The court considered judicial economy and the vacillating positions of Tineo and Linn. The court distinguished this case from situations involving governmental interference with choice of counsel prior to the commencement of criminal proceedings. “It is no abuse of discretion for a trial court, acting on the eve of trial, to consider the interests of judicial economy, the integrity of the criminal process, and continuous vacillation of both defendant and counsel, in denying a motion for reinstatement.” The court emphasized that its role is not to second-guess the trial court’s exercise of discretion or to speculate on the defendant’s motivations.