People v. Mead, 101946.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | 101946. |
| Citation | 64 A.D.3d 814,882 N.Y.S.2d 738,2009 NY Slip Op 05654 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANDREW C. MEAD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall, J.), rendered September 27, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree. At a hearing to discuss a possible plea agreement, the prosecution acknowledged possession of evidence that would support an affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and dismissed those counts. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining charges and was sentenced, as agreed, to six years in prison and one year in jail (to run concurrently) followed by five years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocution, premised on County Court's alleged failure to adequately inquire as to a possible intoxication defense, is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not make a motion to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Simpson, 19 AD3d 945, 945 [2005]). Moreover, the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine is inapplicable here because, notwithstanding defendant's assertion, County Court clearly satisfied its duty to inquire further (see People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]). Indeed, immediately following defendant's statement regarding his intoxication, County Court suspended the plea allocution and advised defendant that such intoxication was something a jury would consider when determining whether he possessed a criminal intent and asked defendant if he was certain that he wanted to proceed without a trial and enter a guilty plea. Following defendant's affirmative response to that question, defense counsel informed County Court that he and defendant had engaged in extensive discussions regarding the matter. Thus, were we to review the merits, we would find that County Court, having ascertained that defendant's waiver of a possible intoxication defense was knowing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
... ... People v Thompson, 110 A.D.3d 1114, 1115 [2013], lv ... denied 22 N.Y.3d 1091 [2014]; People v Mead, 64 ... A.D.3d 814, 815 [2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 890 ... [2010]). "Having failed to express, in any way, ... dissatisfaction ... ...
-
People v. Graves
...that defendant had discussed the intoxication defense with counsel and wanted to proceed by entering a guilty plea ( see People v. Mead, 64 A.D.3d 814, 815, 882 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2009], lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 890, 903 N.Y.S.2d 778, 929 N.E.2d 1013 [2010]; People v. Moore 270 A.D.2d 715, 716, 705 N......
-
People v. Thompson
...was insufficient is unpreserved as he failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Mead, 64 A.D.3d 814, 815, 882 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2009],lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 890, 903 N.Y.S.2d 778, 929 N.E.2d 1013 [2010];People v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 1133, 1133, 864 N.Y......
-
People v. Williams
...110 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 972 N.Y.S.2d 356 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1091, 981 N.Y.S.2d 676, 4 N.E.3d 978 [2014] ; People v. Mead, 64 A.D.3d 814, 815, 882 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 890, 903 N.Y.S.2d 778, 929 N.E.2d 1013 [2010] ). "Having failed to express, in any way, dissatis......