Opinion
2015-08-19
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Isaac J. NARBONNE, appellant.
Phillip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Seth B. Altman and Andrew Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Phillip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Seth B. Altman and Andrew Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered January 25, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Canole, 123 A.D.3d 940, 996 N.Y.S.2d 922; People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 566, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). While the presentence report indicated that the defendant had been hospitalized and prescribed medication for psychosis and depression, there is no basis in the record to support his contention that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his defense ( seeCPL 730.30[1]; People v. Kelly, 121 A.D.3d 713, 993 N.Y.S.2d 169; People v. M'Lady, 59 A.D.3d 568, 873 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Parker, 191 A.D.2d 717, 595 N.Y.S.2d 519; People v. Helm, 178 A.D.2d 656, 577 N.Y.S.2d 889). To the contrary, the defendant's responses at the plea and sentencing proceedings were appropriate, and did not indicate that he was incapacitated ( see People v. M'Lady, 59 A.D.3d at 568, 873 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803). Under these circumstances, the County Court was not required to, sua sponte, direct a competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30 ( see People v. Monk, 29 A.D.3d 605, 815 N.Y.S.2d 130; People v. Eherts, 21 A.D.3d 905, 800 N.Y.S.2d 514; People v. Graham, 272 A.D.2d 479, 708 N.Y.S.2d 336).
The defendant's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court due to his failure to appeal from a judgment and amended judgment rendered January 6, 2012 ( see People v. Pagan, 27 A.D.3d 580, 581, 810 N.Y.S.2d 370). MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.