People v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 16 November 2006
• Docket Number: 16222.
• Citation: 823 N.Y.S.2d 625,2006 NY Slip Op 08290,34 A.D.3d 984
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TABITHA LAWRENCE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

34 A.D.3d 984

823 N.Y.S.2d 625

2006 NY Slip Op 08290

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TABITHA LAWRENCE, Appellant.

16222.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

Decided November 16, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered April 22, 2005, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Lahtinen, J.

Defendant, charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, pleaded guilty, as a second felony offender, to the reduced charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement which included the waiver of a right to appeal. Defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea, submitted on her behalf by a second assigned counsel after she expressed dissatisfaction with her original representation, was denied by County Court which subsequently imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 2 to 4 years in prison. On this appeal, defendant maintains that County Court's denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea was improper because, as a result of her mental condition, she did not enter into the plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. She likewise maintains that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

"The determination of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea lies within the sound discretion of the trial court" (People v Morris, 30 AD3d 632, 632 [2006] [citations omitted]). Notably, the denial of such a motion is not an abuse of discretion, despite defendant's mental health condition, where the trial court has been aware of that condition throughout the proceedings and "conducts a thorough inquiry ... to establish that, despite those deficiencies, defendant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea and the motion to withdraw is based upon defendant's unsubstantiated claims of lack of comprehension" (People v D'Adamo, 281 AD2d 751, 752 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 730 [2002]).

Here, notwithstanding the submission by defendant of documentary evidence attesting to her treatment for bipolar disorder, a review of the record reveals that County Court had been apprised of defendant's...