People v. Washington
| Decision Date | 16 December 2015 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin WASHINGTON, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
134 A.D.3d 963
20 N.Y.S.3d 896 (Mem)
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Kevin WASHINGTON, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 16, 2015.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Bay Shore, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jacqueline Rosenblum and Rebecca L. Abensur of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered April 24, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the plea court failed to inquire into his mental capacity at the time of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 804, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Perez, 65 A.D.3d 1167, 885 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a need for the plea court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant's mental health before accepting his
plea of guilty (see People v. DeBenedetto, 120 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d at 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; People v. Phillips, 243 A.D.2d 514, 515, 663 N.Y.S.2d 90 ). Upon examination six weeks earlier by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, the defendant had been found fit to proceed in the criminal action, and the defendant's demeanor at the plea allocution and responses to the plea court's inquiries were appropriate (see People v. DeBenedetto, 120 A.D.3d at 1429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d at 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; People v. Phillips, 243 A.D.2d at 515, 663 N.Y.S.2d 90 ;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Galea
... ... Raymond , 150 A.D.3d 766, 51 N.Y.S.3d 428 ; People v. Washington , 134 A.D.3d 963, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Sulaiman , 134 A.D.3d 860, 861, 20 N.Y.S.3d 650 ). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a need for the court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant's mental health before accepting his plea of guilty (see People v. Washington , 134 ... ...
-
People v. Raymond
...plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Sulaiman, 134 A.D.3d 860, 861, 20 N.Y.S.3d 650 ; People v. Washington, 134 A.D.3d 963, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 804, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Perez, 65 A.D.3d 1167, 885 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; People v.......
-
People v. Socci
... ... 1715/07, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.The defendant's contention that he was not competent to plead guilty is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Washington, 134 A.D.3d 963, 963, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Perez, 65 A.D.3d 1167, 885 N.Y.S.2d 127 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. The defendant was presumed competent to proceed (see People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 618 N.Y.S.2d 895, 643 N.E.2d 517 ). His demeanor in court and ... ...
- People v. Veras