Opinion
2015-06-24
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Phillip MARTINEZ, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered December 13, 2010, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), attempted assault in the third degree, and criminal trespass in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court rendered February 14, 2012, revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court on December 13, 2010, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous convictions of criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), attempted assault in the third degree, and criminal trespass in the third degree.
ORDERED that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea ( see People v. Canole, 123 A.D.3d 940, 940, 996 N.Y.S.2d 922). In any event, the record reflects that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646). The defendant's post-plea assertions regarding his innocence contradicted the admissions he made under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of his plea or a hearing ( see People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; People v. Dazzo, 92 A.D.3d 796, 796, 938 N.Y.S.2d 446; People v. Douglas, 83 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 921 N.Y.S.2d 324).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to, sua sponte, order a competency examination ( see People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87; People v. Velez, 64 A.D.3d 799, 800, 882 N.Y.S.2d 712; People v. Simpson, 52 A.D.3d 846, 847, 859 N.Y.S.2d 381).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.