People v. Thompkins

• Decision Date: 27 November 1996
• Citation: 233 A.D.2d 759,650 N.Y.S.2d 406
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Grady L. THOMPKINS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 406

650 N.Y.S.2d 406

233 A.D.2d 759

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Grady L. THOMPKINS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Nov. 27, 1996.

Kenneth P. Craig, Elmira, for appellant.

James T. Hayden, District Attorney, Elmira, for respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and WHITE, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ.

SPAIN, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher Jr., J.), rendered May 3, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree as charged in an indictment. The charge stems from allegations that defendant, while displaying what appeared to be a gun in a bag, forcibly stole property from a store clerk in the Village of Horseheads, Chemung County. Defendant unpersuasively argues that his counsel's failure to timely seek dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50(5)(c) denied him meaningful representation (see, People v. Lasher, 199 A.D.2d 595, 605 N.Y.S.2d 973, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855, 612 N.Y.S.2d 386, 634 N.E.2d 987). During the plea colloquy, defendant informed County Court that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol when the crime took place and had no recollection of being near the crime scene or committing the crime. After inquiring into these assertions, County Court eventually accepted his plea. Defendant contends on appeal that County Court should not have proceeded with the plea without first apprising him that lack of intent is a defense to the crime and confirming that defendant was indeed waiving such a defense.

When a claim concerning a plea allocution has not been preserved by either a motion to withdraw the plea (see, CPL 220.60) or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, CPL 440.10), it is a rare case when the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal (see, People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Trathen, 227 A.D.2d 734, 642 N.Y.S.2d 347). When the allocution "clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" (People v. Lopez, supra, at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5), the trial court has a duty to ensure that the defendant understands the charges facing him and is intelligently entering the plea. Only when the trial court fails in this inquiry may a defendant challenge the allocution on direct appeal (see, id.) Here, the record is clear as to the voluntariness of defendant's plea. Throughout the allocution he repeatedly indicated his desire to plead guilty. Moreover, there is nothing in any of defendant's statements which "clearly casts significant doubt" on his guilt (id., at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). Defendant's statements corroborate the evidence against him and so act to bolster, rather than question, his guilt. For example, defendant admitted to having owned, and no longer having, the sweat shirt found by police shortly after the robbery. Defendant was aware of the weight of the evidence against him and made no attempt to challenge that evidence.

In any event, even if this record was...