Opinion
06-09-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marino PADILLA, Defendant–Appellant.
Williams Heinl Moody Buschman, P.C., Auburn (Mario J. Gutierrez of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Andrew R. Kelly of Counsel), for Respondent.
Williams Heinl Moody Buschman, P.C., Auburn (Mario J. Gutierrez of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Andrew R. Kelly of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree ( Penal Law § 205.25 [2 ] ), defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered because, during his plea, he informed County Court that he was currently taking two medications for his mental health problems. Defendant contends that, instead of accepting his plea, the court should have conducted a hearing pursuant to CPL article 730. We reject defendant's contentions. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is valid, we note that his contentions survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Davis, 129 A.D.3d 1613, 1613–1614, 11 N.Y.S.3d 778, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 966, 18 N.Y.S.3d 602, 40 N.E.3d 580 ; People v. Hawkins, 70 A.D.3d 1389, 1389, 894 N.Y.S.2d 686, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 888, 903 N.Y.S.2d 776, 929 N.E.2d 1011 ). We nevertheless conclude that defendant failed to preserve his contentions for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Williams, 124 A.D.3d 1285, 1285, 999 N.Y.S.2d 642, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1078, 12 N.Y.S.3d 630, 34 N.E.3d 381 ), and the narrow exception to the preservation rule does not apply here (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, "the court sufficiently inquired about defendant's mental health issues and medications and ensured that he was lucid and understood the proceedings" ( People v. Russell, 133 A.D.3d 1199, 1199–1200, 20 N.Y.S.3d 760, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574 ), and there is nothing in the record to support defendant's contention that his prescribed medication or his mental illness "so stripped him of orientation or cognition that he lacked the capacity to plead guilty" ( People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; see People v. Hayes, 39 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 834 N.Y.S.2d 784, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 923, 844 N.Y.S.2d 178, 875 N.E.2d 897 ).
To the extent that defendant contends that the court sua sponte should have ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to CPL article 730, we reject that contention. "There is no evidence in the record that would have warranted the court to question defendant's competency or ability to understand the nature of the proceedings or the charge[ ]" ( People v. Dunn, 261 A.D.2d 940, 941, 690 N.Y.S.2d 349, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 822, 702 N.Y.S.2d 592, 724 N.E.2d 384 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.