People v. Godfrey
| Decision Date | 03 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2005-08838. |
| Citation | 822 N.Y.S.2d 135,33 A.D.3d 623,2006 NY Slip Op 07178 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SHERRIE GODFREY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not move to vacate her plea on that basis (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636 [1983]; People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d 388 [2005]). Furthermore, while the mental evaluations which were performed on the defendant revealed that she had a "major depressant 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 proceedings against her or that she was unable to assist in her defense (see CPL 730.30 [1]; People v Phillips, 243 AD2d 514 [1997]; People v Rowley, 222 AD2d 718 [1995]; People v Hollis, 204 AD2d 569 [1994]). Moreover, the psychiatrist and psychologists who examined the defendant both before and after the plea found that she was competent to stand trial (see People v Rodney, 245 AD2d 394 [1997]).
The defendant's challenge to her enhanced sentence also is unpreserved for appellate review since she failed to object to the sentence or move to vacate her plea on that basis (see People v Thomas, 2 AD3d 758 [2003]; People v Howze, 243 AD2d 652 [1997]; People v Gayle, 224 AD2d 710 [1996]). In any event, after the defendant entered her plea, the court expressly warned the defendant that she would face the imposition of an enhanced sentence if, inter alia, she did not cooperate with the Department of Probation. Since the defendant failed to cooperate with the Department of Probation, the court was authorized to impose the enhanced sentence (see People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840 [1995]; People v Velez, 212 AD2d 647 [1995]; People v Gayle, supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Luck
...appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the resentence or move to vacate her plea on that basis (see People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). In any event, given that she received at resentencing a term of imprisonment that was less than what was promised at th......
-
People v. Caza
...752, 963 N.E.2d 129 [2012];see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 188–189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 [2002];People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 [2006],lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 846, 830 N.Y.S.2d 705, 862 N.E.2d 797 [2007];cf. People v. Becker, 80 A.D.3d 795, 796–797, 914 N.......
-
People v. Sulaiman
...mere fact that the defendant may have had a mental condition did not impair his ability to make a valid plea (see People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; People v. Rodriguez, 83 A.D.3d 449, 920 N.Y.S.2d 341 ), and the colloquy between the Supreme Court and the defendant du......
-
People v. Washington
...(see People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 804, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Perez, 65 A.D.3d 1167, 885 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a need for the plea court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendan......