Opinion
February 23, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant maintains on appeal that no inquiry was made "as to whether or not [he] was on drugs or alcohol at the time he committed the crime and/or at the time he pled guilty". However, the court, the defendant and defense counsel engaged in an extended colloquy at sentencing concerning the defendant's psychological condition and drug and alcohol abuse. From the record it is clear that the defendant and his attorney were well aware of the possibility of asserting the insanity or intoxication defenses with respect to commission of the crimes, but, explicitly and with full comprehension, opted not to do so, thereby waiving the defendant's rights in this regard (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). There is no indication that the defendant's mental state was in any way impaired at the time he committed the crimes or pleaded guilty, unlike the defendants in the cases relied upon by him (see, People v. Moore, 78 A.D.2d 997; People v. Valente, 77 A.D.2d 917). Further, the pleas satisfied the requirements set forth in People v. Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9). Lastly, as defendant pleaded guilty with the knowledge that he would receive the sentence imposed, he cannot now claim that his sentence was excessive (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.