Opinion
16440 4000/10.
12-17-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 1, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a determinate term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 1988 ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. There was nothing before the plea court to warrant an inquiry into whether defendant's mental condition impaired his ability to understand the plea proceedings, or into whether he affirmatively waived an insanity defense (see People v. Diallo, 88 A.D.3d 511, 930 N.Y.S.2d 194 1st Dept.2011, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 882, 939 N.Y.S.2d 752, 963 N.E.2d 129 2012 ). Unlike the situation in People v. Mox, 20 N.Y.3d 936, 958 N.Y.S.2d 670, 982 N.E.2d 590 (2012), there was nothing in the plea allocution that triggered a duty to inquire into an potential psychiatric defense.
Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, JJ., concur.