Opinion
2012-02-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard J. STRAUB, Appellant.
James R. McGinn, Delmar, for appellant. Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Irene C. Graven of counsel), for respondent.
James R. McGinn, Delmar, for appellant. Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Irene C. Graven of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., PETERS, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH AND McCARTHY, JJ.
MALONE JR., J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), rendered April 25, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the first degree and was sentenced, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a prison term of 10 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
While defendant first challenges the voluntariness of his plea on the ground that he was not given adequate time to evaluate the offer, his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction renders this argument unpreserved for review ( see People v. Zimmerman, 87 A.D.3d 1225, 1225–1226, 930 N.Y.S.2d 85 [2011]; People v. Planty, 85 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 925 N.Y.S.2d 240 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 820, 929 N.Y.S.2d 809, 954 N.E.2d 100 [2011] ). To the extent that defendant argues that the exception to the preservation rule applies inasmuch as he made statements during the plea colloquy that suggested that his medications may have influenced his commission of the crime, we find that County Court conducted a sufficient inquiry thereafter to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charge and that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]; People v. Kilgore, 45 A.D.3d 886, 887–888, 844 N.Y.S.2d 487 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 767, 854 N.Y.S.2d 329, 883 N.E.2d 1264 [2008]; People v. Mejias, 293 A.D.2d 819, 819–820, 742 N.Y.S.2d 129 [2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 699, 747 N.Y.S.2d 418, 776 N.E.2d 7 [2002] ). Defendant's argument that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel is also unpreserved for review ( see People v. Campbell, 89 A.D.3d 1279, 1279, 932 N.Y.S.2d 583 [2011]; People v. Zimmerman, 87 A.D.3d at 1225–1226, 930 N.Y.S.2d 85) and, in any event, the record indicates that defendant was afforded meaningful representation. Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.