People v. Copeman

• Decision Date: 28 October 2010
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald COPEMAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

909 N.Y.S.2d 815

77 A.D.3d 1187

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Donald COPEMAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 28, 2010.

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.

Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Victoria Esposito of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SPAIN, J.P., LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH, STEIN and GARRY, JJ.

KAVANAGH, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), entered May 29, 2009, which denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

Defendant pleaded not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to the crimes of attempted kidnapping in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree ( see CPL 220.15). Thereafter, County Court (Nicandri, J.) determined that he suffered from a dangerous mental disorder and committed him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health ( see CPL 330.20). In 2006, County Court (Rogers, J.) determinedthat it lacked authority to dismiss the underlying indictment and we affirmed that order upon appeal ( People v. Copeman, 53 A.D.3d 854, 861 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 854, 872 N.Y.S.2d 77, 900 N.E.2d 560 [2008] ). Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his plea pursuant to CPL 220.60(3), and now appeals from County Court's denial of that motion.

We affirm. A plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea entered in a criminal proceeding, and the same standard applies when a defendant seeks to withdraw it ( see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Copeman, 53 A.D.3d at 856, 861 N.Y.S.2d 504; People v. Davis, 195 A.D.2d 1, 5-6, 606 N.Y.S.2d 899 [1994], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 871, 613 N.Y.S.2d 131, 635 N.E.2d 300 [1994] ). Whether to permit a plea to be withdrawn is a decision to be made by County Court in the sound exercise of its discretion, and a hearing is only required when a genuine question of fact exists as to whether the plea was voluntarily entered ( see People v. Shovah, 67 A.D.3d 1257, 1257, 889 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 773, 898 N.Y.S.2d 105, 925 N.E.2d 110 [2010]; People v. Greathouse, 62 A.D.3d 1212, 1213, 879 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 744, 886 N.Y.S.2d 98, 914 N.E.2d 1016 [2009] ). In that regard, "no abuse of discretion will generally be found in the trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a plea without a hearing where the court-aware at the plea proceedings of defendant's mental health problems-conducts a thorough inquiry during those proceedings to establish that, despite those deficiencies, defendant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea" ( People v. D'Adamo, 281 A.D.2d 751, 752, 721 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2001]; see People v. Lawrence, 34 A.D.3d 984, 984, 823 N.Y.S.2d 625 [2006] ).

Here, County Court (Nicandri, J.) was aware of defendant's mental health concerns and, during the plea proceedings, elicited from defense counsel that he had spoken with defendant on numerous occasions prior to the plea being entered, found defendant's mental state to have improved significantly since receiving psychiatric treatment and believed that defendant fully understood the ramifications of entering such a plea. During the plea colloquy, defendant identified the medications he was taking to treat his mental condition and acknowledged not only that he felt "fine," but also that he was fully aware of his surroundings. Defendant also confirmed that he had consulted with counsel and understood not only the rights he was giving up by entering the plea, but also that such a plea could lead to hiscommitment. Nothing said during the plea colloquy gave "the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent" ( People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 [2002] ). Defendant now claims that the medications he was taking to address his...