Opinion
No. 2018-14948 Ind. No. 1245/17
07-13-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Ronald Jones, appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant. Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William C. Milaccio and Ryan R. Pouliot of counsel), for respondent.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William C. Milaccio and Ryan R. Pouliot of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (George E. Fufidio, Jr., J.), rendered October 2, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to a negotiated term of imprisonment.
The defendant's challenge to the procedure used to adjudicate him a second violent felony offender (see CPL 400.15) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973, 974-975; People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 637; People v Momoh, 192 A.D.3d 915, 916-917). Moreover, as a condition of his plea of guilty, the defendant waived his right to controvert the second violent felony offender statement offered by the People (see People v Blackwell, 151 A.D.2d 686, 686; see also People v Jackson, 87 A.D.3d 552, 554; People v Gottschalk, 204 A.D.2d 567, 567). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the record reflects compliance with the requirements of CPL 400.15 (see id. § 400.15[2], [4]; People v Smothers, 175 A.D.3d 1441, 1442; People v Scott, 172 A.D.3d 912, 912; People v Johnson, 157 A.D.3d 817, 817).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty may not have been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because of his purported history of mental illness is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v Arce, 196 A.D.3d 696, 696). In any event, the contention is without merit, as nothing in the record supports the conclusion that, at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings or the consequences of his plea (see People v DeBenedetto, 120 A.D.3d 1428, 1429; People v Brooks, 89 A.D.3d 747, 747). To the contrary, the defendant's "responses at the plea and sentencing proceedings were appropriate and did not suggest that [he] was incapacitated" (People v Arce, 196 A.D.3d at 697).
To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel survives his plea of guilty (see People v Coverdale, 189 A.D.3d 1610, 1611; People v Vicente, 167 A.D.3d 951, 952), the contention is without merit. The record reflects that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see also People v Bhuiyan, 181 A.D.3d 699, 701), and the performance of the defendant's counsel did not fall below "an objective standard of reasonableness" (Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MILLER, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.