People v. Galea

• Decision Date: 05 December 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–13066,Ind. 1065/16
• Citation: 86 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem),167 A.D.3d 652
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Antonio GALEA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 652

86 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Antonio GALEA, Appellant.

2016–13066

Ind. 1065/16

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

Submitted - September 26, 2018

December 5, 2018

Martin Geduldig, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jacqueline Rosenblum and W. Thomas Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of attempted robbery in the third degree upon his plea of guilty and, in accordance with the plea agreement, sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1½ to 3 years.

The defendant's contention that the plea allocution was insufficient because the Supreme Court failed to inquire into his mental capacity at the time of the plea is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Raymond , 150 A.D.3d 766, 51 N.Y.S.3d 428 ; People v. Washington , 134 A.D.3d 963, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Sulaiman , 134 A.D.3d 860, 861, 20 N.Y.S.3d 650 ). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a need for the court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant's mental health before accepting his plea of guilty (see People v. Washington , 134 A.D.3d at 963–964, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Sulaiman , 134 A.D.3d at 861, 20 N.Y.S.3d 650 ; People v. Godfrey , 33 A.D.3d 623, 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). While the forensic-psychiatric evaluation indicated that the defendant had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, substance use disorder, and antisocial personality disorder, there is no basis in the record to support the conclusion that at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proceeding or the consequences of the plea (see People v. DeBenedetto , 120 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; People v. Brooks , 89 A.D.3d 747, 931 N.Y.S.2d 908 ; People v. M'Lady , 59 A.D.3d 568, 873 N.Y.S.2d 331 ). During the plea allocution, the defendant stated that he took medication but did not feel that his condition interfered with his ability to understand what was happening at that time, appropriately responded to the questions asked of him, and gave no indication that he was mentally incapacitated (see People v. DeBenedetto , 120 A.D.3d at 1429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; People v. Ramos , 77 A.D.3d 773, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484 ; People v. Godfrey , 33...