People v. Paulin

• Decision Date: 08 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 910,918 N.Y.S.2d 368
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rakim PAULIN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 368

82 A.D.3d 910

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Rakim PAULIN, appellant.

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

March 8, 2011.

David Goodman, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Steven Levine of counsel), for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered November 8, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not err in determining, after a hearing, that the defendantwas "fit to proceed" ( see CPL 730.10). The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish a defendant's competence, and the burden requires that fitness to stand trial be established by a preponderance of the evidence ( see People v. Mendez, 1 N.Y.3d 15, 19, 769 N.Y.S.2d 162, 801 N.E.2d 382). A competency inquiry involves a legal, not a medical, determination ( id. at 20, 769 N.Y.S.2d 162, 801 N.E.2d 382). We are satisfied that the prosecution met its burden and perceive no basis upon which to disturb the County Court's determination.

Since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, his current contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. LeGrady, 50 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 856 N.Y.S.2d 224). This is not a case "where the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; see People v. McNair, 13 N.Y.3d 821, 892 N.Y.S.2d 822, 920 N.E.2d 929). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" ( People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; see People v. Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 301, 879 N.Y.S.2d 814, 907 N.E.2d 692; People v. Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780, 781, 793 N.Y.S.2d 826, 826 N.E.2d 797).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the record reveals that defense ...