People v. Rojas

• Citation: 47 N.Y.S.3d 813,147 A.D.3d 1535
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David J. ROJAS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 10 February 2017
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

147 A.D.3d 1535

47 N.Y.S.3d 813

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.David J. ROJAS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Feb. 10, 2017.

Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth deV. Moeller of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua, for Respondent.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ). Defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he initially denied possessing a controlled substance on one of the dates charged in the indictment, expressed that he may have been treated unfairly by law enforcement, and cast doubt upon his guilt when he asserted that he might be suffering from a mental disability. Defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, however, and he therefore failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Brinson, 130 A.D.3d 1493, 1493, 11 N.Y.S.3d 788, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 965, 18 N.Y.S.3d 601, 40 N.E.3d 579 ; People v. Davis, 45 A.D.3d 1357, 1357–1358, 844 N.Y.S.2d 739, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1005, 850 N.Y.S.2d 393, 880 N.E.2d 879 ; People v. Brown, 305 A.D.2d 1068, 1068–1069, 759 N.Y.S.2d 830, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481 ). We note in particular that, before entering the guilty plea, defendant indicated that his attorney had raised all issues regarding his alleged mistreatment by law enforcement, and we further note that County Court took the time to explain to defendant that by pleading guilty he would be foreclosed from having such issues determined by a jury.

To the extent that this case falls within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement because defendant denied possessing a controlled substance on one of the dates charged in the indictment, we note that the court immediately conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; see also People v. Waterman, 229 A.D.2d 1013, 1013, 645 N.Y.S.2d 666 ). Indeed, during that further inquiry, defendant admitted that he possessed the drugs on the date in question (see Waterman, 229 A.D.2d at 1013–1014, 645 N.Y.S.2d 666 ). Thus, the record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see id. at 1014, 645 N.Y.S.2d 666 ). We reach the same conclusion with respect to defendant's claim of mental disability. To the extent that the...