People v. Mattison

• Decision Date: 05 April 2012
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joanne MATTISON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02527

94 A.D.3d 1157

941 N.Y.S.2d 528

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Joanne MATTISON, Appellant.

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

April 5, 2012.

Raymond M. White, Glenmont, for appellant.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, KAVANAGH, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.

EGAN JR., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered July 6, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

In December 2009, defendant was indicted and charged with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with the stabbing death of the victim. Counsel served notice of intent to proffer psychiatric evidence and, at the People's request, County Court ordered a CPL article 730 examination. After interviewing defendant, the evaluating psychiatrist concluded that while defendant was mentally ill, she “was not suffering from a mental disease or defect that caused her to lack substantial capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of her conduct or that her conduct was wrong.” Shortly thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and, in conjunction therewith, executed a written waiver of the right to appeal. Following a presentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to 22 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's assertion that she was not competent to enter a guilty plea, as well as her related claim that County Court erred in accepting her plea without conducting a competency hearing, impact the voluntariness of her plea and, hence, survive her unchallenged oral and written waivers of the right to appeal; however, these issues are unpreserved for our review in light of defendant's failure to move to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. McFarren, 83 A.D.3d 1209, 1209, 921 N.Y.S.2d 391 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 860, 932 N.Y.S.2d 26, 956 N.E.2d 807 [2011]; People v. Budwick, 82 A.D.3d 1447, 1448, 918 N.Y.S.2d 750 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 857, 932 N.Y.S.2d 22, 956 N.E.2d 803 [2011]; People v. Stoddard, 67 A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 889 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 806, 899 N.Y.S.2d 140, 925 N.E.2d 944 [2010] ). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here, as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that were inconsistent with her guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of her plea ( see People v. Rought, 90 A.D.3d 1247, 1248, 934 N.Y.S.2d 617 [2011]; People v. McFarren, 83 A.D.3d at 1209, 921 N.Y.S.2d 391; People v. Coons, 73 A.D.3d 1343, 1344, 901 N.Y.S.2d 406 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 803, 908 N.Y.S.2d 163, 934 N.E.2d 897 [2010] ). Finally, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal precludes her current challenge to County Court's suppression rulings ( see People v. Moreno, 86 A.D.3d 863, 864, 927 N.Y.S.2d 487 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 954, 936 N.Y.S.2d 80, 959 N.E.2d 1029 [2011]; People v. White, 75 A.D.3d 837, 838, 905 N.Y.S.2d 681 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 925, 913 N.Y.S.2d 652, 939 N.E.2d 818...