People v. Di Donato
| Decision Date | 21 March 1996 |
| Citation | 665 N.E.2d 186,642 N.Y.S.2d 616,87 N.Y.2d 992 |
| Parties | , 665 N.E.2d 186 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francis Di DONATO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
O'Connell & Aronowitz, Saratoga Springs (Dean H. Higgins, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney of Schenectady County, Schenectady (Alfred D. Chapleau, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of burglary in the first degree and sentenced to an indeterminate term in prison. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment.
Upon this appeal he challenges a ruling of the court which denied his motion to file a late notice of intention to present psychiatric evidence. The motion was made some 15 months after his plea of not guilty to the indictment (see, CPL 250.10). The court denied the motion, concluding defendant had failed to excuse the delay or present sufficient evidence to support the mental defect defense. Defendant maintains that the ruling was erroneous and that he may appeal it notwithstanding his plea of guilty. The ruling is not within that limited group of questions which survive a plea and may subsequently be raised on appeal (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 280, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022; People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755). It was a discretionary ruling, addressing procedural timeliness, and defendant's ability to challenge it was forfeited by his plea (see, People v. Petgen, 55 N.Y.2d 529, 534, 450 N.Y.S.2d 299, 435 N.E.2d 669).
Nor may defendant raise the issue because his plea was expressly conditioned on his right to appeal the ruling. Generally, conditional pleas are not accepted in New York (see, People v. O'Brien, 84 A.D.2d 567, 443 N.Y.S.2d 255, affd., 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354; see also, People v. Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234, 240, 448 N.Y.S.2d 448, 433 N.E.2d 513; People v. Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338, 441 N.Y.S.2d 650, 424 N.E.2d 537).
Insofar as defendant urges that under the circumstances his plea was not knowing or voluntary, that contention must be addressed in a proceeding pursuant to article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Qike
...a defendant has failed to abide by the procedural requirements of providing adequate notice to the People. (People v. DiDonato, 87 N.Y.2d 992, 993, 642 N.Y.S.2d 616, 665 N.E.2d 186 [Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to file a late notice or psychiatric evidence made more than 15 mo......
-
People v. Oliver
...on this ground alone. People v. Almonor, supra, at 581, 693 N.Y.S.2d 861, 715 N.E.2d 1054 ; see also People v. Di Donato, 87 N.Y.2d 992, 642 N.Y.S.2d 616, 665 N.E.2d 186 (1996). However, even had the defendant's application conformed to the statute, the testimony would not be admissible.The......
-
Bell v. Ercole
...of intent to introduce psychiatric evidence is a discretionary determination to be made by the trial court (CPL 250.10; see, People v Di Donato, 87 N.Y.2d 992). The trial court's discretion in this matter, however, is not absolute. Exclusion of relevant and probative testimony as a sanction......
-
People v. Smelefsky
...proposal, first because conditional plea bargains are generally disfavored in New York (see, e.g., People v. DiDonato, 87 N.Y.2d 992, 993, 642 N.Y.S.2d 616, 665 N.E.2d 186 [1996]; People v. Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338, 441 N.Y.S.2d 650, 424 N.E.2d 537 [1981]; People v. O'Brien, 84 A.D.2d 567, 443......