People v. Maillet
| Citation | 156 A.D.3d 726,64 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 13 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2016–03291,2016–03292,Ind. Nos. 15–00438,2016–03289,15–00499,15–00439 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony J. MAILLET, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
John P. Savoca, Yorktown, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the County Court, Orange County (McLoughlin, J.), each rendered March 2, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 15–00438, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 15–00439, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 15–00499, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the County Court failed to sufficiently advise him of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and because he lacked the capacity to understand the plea proceedings due to medication he was taking at that time. However, the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant did not move to vacate his pleas or otherwise raise the issue in the County Court (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Clarke, 93 N.Y.2d 904, 906, 690 N.Y.S.2d 501, 712 N.E.2d 668 ; People v. Morris, 147 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 48 N.Y.S.3d 425 ; People v. Jackson, 114 A.D.3d 807, 979 N.Y.S.2d 704 ). In any event, the pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 ). The court adequately advised the defendant of the constitutional rights he was surrendering by pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ; cf. People v. Tyrell, 22 N.Y.3d 359, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346 ), and the record affirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of those constitutional rights (see People v. Sirico, 135 A.D.3d 19, 22, 18 N.Y.S.3d 430 ; People v. Isaiah S., 130 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 13 N.Y.S.3d 840 ; People v. Bennett, 122 A.D.3d 871, 872, 996 N.Y.S.2d 369 ).
Furthermore, the defendant's assertion that he did not understand the plea proceedings because he was taking medication for a psychological condition is belied by the transcript of the plea proceedings, which demonstrates that the defendant expressly denied taking any drugs at that time and confirmed that he understood what was happening (see People v. Quinones, 63 A.D.3d 759, 760, 879 N.Y.S.2d 342 ; People v. Brooks, 36 A.D.3d 929, 930, 828 N.Y.S.2d 553 ; People v. Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752, 753, 484 N.Y.S.2d 117 ). While the presentence report contains the defendant's postplea statement that he was prescribed medication for depression while incarcerated, there is no basis in the record to support his contention that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him (see People v. Morris, 147 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 48 N.Y.S.3d 425 ; People v. Thomas, 139 A.D.3d 986, 987, 31 N.Y.S.3d 591 ; People v. Narbonne, 131 A.D.3d 626, 627, 14 N.Y.S.3d 917 ).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 341–342, 12...
To continue reading
Request your trial