Opinion
106169
03-12-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Larry D. DUFFY, Appellant.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Carole M. Cassidy of counsel), for respondent.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Carole M. Cassidy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion
GARRY, J.P.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered July 23, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
Defendant waived indictment and entered a guilty plea to a superior court instrument charging him with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, which also satisfied other charges. He was sentenced, as agreed, as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, and now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contentions that his plea was not voluntary and that County Court erred in accepting his guilty plea without conducting a hearing to determine his competency were not preserved for our review by a postallocution motion to withdraw his plea (see People v. Vandemark, 117 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 986 N.Y.S.2d 684 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 965, 996 N.Y.S.2d 224, 20 N.E.3d 1004 [2014] ; People v. Bennett, 30 A.D.3d 631, 631, 817 N.Y.S.2d 399 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 809, 822 N.Y.S.2d 484, 855 N.E.2d 800 [2006] ; compare People v. D'Adamo, 281 A.D.2d 751, 752–753, 721 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2001] ). Moreover, a defendant is presumed competent and, absent reasonable grounds to believe that he or she is incapable of understanding the proceedings due to a mental disease or defect, a court is not required to order a competency hearing based solely upon a history of substance abuse or mental illness (see People v. Blackmon, 122 A.D.3d 1071, 1072–1073, 996 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2014] ; People v. Dowling, 92 A.D.3d 1034, 1034, 937 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2012], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 993, 945 N.Y.S.2d 648, 968 N.E.2d 1004 [2012] ; People v. Woodard, 17 A.D.3d 929, 930, 793 N.Y.S.2d 622 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 811, 803 N.Y.S.2d 40, 836 N.E.2d 1163 [2005] ).
A review of the plea proceedings and defendant's participation therein discloses nothing to support the conclusion that he was suffering from mental illness or was under the influence of medication that clouded his judgment so as to render him incapable of voluntarily entering a guilty plea (see People v. Riley, 97 A.D.3d 982, 983, 947 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 935, 957 N.Y.S.2d 695, 981 N.E.2d 292 [2012] ; compare People v. Hennessey, 111 A.D.3d 1166, 1167–1168, 975 N.Y.S.2d 502 [2013] ). Defendant provided coherent responses to County Court's inquiry, indicated that he understood and made no statements that called into question the voluntariness of his plea so as to alert the court of the need to inquire as to his competency or to hold a competency hearing (see CPL 730.30[1] ; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ; People v. Tafari, 90 A.D.3d 1341, 1342–1343, 935 N.Y.S.2d 378 [2011], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 977, 950 N.Y.S.2d 360, 973 N.E.2d 770 [2012] ; People v.
Rought, 90 A.D.3d 1247, 1248, 934 N.Y.S.2d 617 [2011], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 962, 944 N.Y.S.2d 490, 967 N.E.2d 715 [2012] ). Although the presentence investigation report reflects defendant's self-reported substance abuse history and mental health problem for which he receives medication, “the record as a whole reflects no grounds to believe that defendant was incapable of understanding the proceedings against him due to mental disease or defect [or that he suffered medication side-effects]” (People v. Bennett, 30 A.D.3d at 631, 817 N.Y.S.2d 399 ). Thus, we discern no error in the court accepting defendant's guilty plea.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
EGAN JR., LYNCH and CLARK, JJ., concur.