Opinion
05-03-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carl RAYMOND, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Jared Chester of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Jared Chester of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered June 7, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first 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 knowing and voluntary because the Supreme Court failed to inquire into his mental capacity at the time of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Sulaiman, 134 A.D.3d 860, 861, 20 N.Y.S.3d 650 ; People v. Washington, 134 A.D.3d 963, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Pelaez, 100 A.D.3d 803, 804, 954 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; People v. Perez, 65 A.D.3d 1167, 885 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d 623, 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a need for the court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant's mental health before accepting his plea of guilty (see People v. Sulaiman, 134 A.D.3d at 861, 20 N.Y.S.3d 650; People v. Washington, 134 A.D.3d at 963–964, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d at 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). Although the defendant previously had been found unfit to proceed in the criminal action, within the month before the plea proceeding, he was found fit to proceed, and his demeanor at the plea allocution and responses to the court's inquiries were appropriate (see People v. Washington, 134 A.D.3d at 964, 20 N.Y.S.3d 896; People v. Godfrey, 33 A.D.3d at 624, 822 N.Y.S.2d 135 ).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the Supreme Court failed to advise him that the sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision before he admitted to the factual allegations of the crime is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 ). In any event, this contention is also without merit, as the record demonstrates that the defendant was advised of the period of postrelease supervision at the plea allocution (see generally People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 545, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18 ).BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LaSALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.