Opinion
02-13-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William C. TRACY, Defendant–Appellant.
Adam H. Van Buskirk, Auburn, for Defendant–Appellant. Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for Respondent.
Adam H. Van Buskirk, Auburn, for Defendant–Appellant.
Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of four counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25[2] ) and one count of endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1] ). County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that, as the result of his mental illness and use of psychiatric medication, the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered (see generally People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543–544, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ). The record supports the court's conclusion that defendant's “plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that his psychiatric condition and medications did not undermine his ability to understand the terms and consequences of his guilty plea” (People v. Mack, 90 A.D.3d 1317, 1321, 935 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).
The court also properly refused to suppress defendant's statement to the police on the ground that he was impaired by medication during the interrogation and thus did not validly waive his Miranda rights. The evidence at the suppression hearing supports the court's determination that defendant effectively waived his Miranda rights, including the right to counsel (see People v. Twillie, 28 A.D.3d 1236, 1237, 813 N.Y.S.2d 626, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 795, 821 N.Y.S.2d 825, 854 N.E.2d 1290 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record does not establish that “he was under the influence of medication at the time he waived those rights ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statement[ ]’ ” (People v. Dasher, 109 A.D.3d 1125, 1125, 971 N.Y.S.2d 909, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1040, 981 N.Y.S.2d 373, 4 N.E.3d 385, quoting People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305, cert. denied 389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157 ).
We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in failing, sua sponte, to appoint new counsel to represent defendant on his motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Contrary to defendant's contention, defense counsel did not take a position adverse to defendant with respect to that motion (see People v. Wolf, 88 A.D.3d 1266, 1268, 930 N.Y.S.2d 382, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 863, 938 N.Y.S.2d 871, 962 N.E.2d 296 ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.