People v. Leach

• Decision Date: 05 March 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Raymond LEACH, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

115 A.D.3d 677
981 N.Y.S.2d 445
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01464

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Raymond LEACH, appellant.

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

March 5, 2014.

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Schulz and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 27, 2011, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[981 N.Y.S.2d 446]

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

A waiver of the right to appeal is enforceable where, as here, it is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent ( 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, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022;People v. Finn, 56 A.D.3d 490, 865 N.Y.S.2d 915).

A defendant cannot waive, as part of a plea bargain, a question as to his competency to stand trial ( see People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 599, 602, 635 N.Y.S.2d 139, 658 N.E.2d 1012;People v. Armlin, 37 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 371 N.Y.S.2d 691, 332 N.E.2d 870). Similarly, a challenge to a defendant's competency remains outside the ambit of a valid appeal waiver ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d at 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022). Here, however, the defendant's contention that his plea was involuntary because he was mentally incompetent to understand the nature of the charges against him is belied by the record. The defendant's most recent psychological evaluation concluded that the defendant was mentally competent, and defense counsel stated that he did not wish to controvert that evaluation. Moreover, the defendant's responses during the plea and sentence proceedings were appropriate and did not indicate that he was incapacitated ( see People v. Batista, 82 A.D.3d 1113, 1114, 919 N.Y.S.2d 350;People v. Gallo, 73 A.D.3d 804, 805, 899 N.Y.S.2d 655;People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 566, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803;People v. Hollis, 204 A.D.2d 569, 614 N.Y.S.2d 211).

The original charge under count one of the indictment had been reduced by a prior order of the County Court from grand larceny in the third degree to attempted grand larceny in the third degree on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the offense charged. The People neither filed a reduced indictment nor exercised any of their other options pursuant to CPL 210.20(6) within 30 days following the entry of the order. As part of a negotiated plea bargain, the defendant pleaded guilty to count one as reduced by the County Court....