Opinion
KA 15–1428 1545
12-22-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlos K. WHITE, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because, inter alia, he was pressured by his family to enter the plea agreement and was taking medication to address the stress of the situation. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Gilbert, 111 A.D.3d 1437, 1437, 974 N.Y.S.2d 874 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1138, 983 N.Y.S.2d 497, 6 N.E.3d 616 [2014] ), 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 [1988] ). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. Defendant's statement during the plea colloquy that it was his "and [his] family['s] decision" to enter the plea agreement did not render the plea involuntary (see Gilbert, 111 A.D.3d at 1437, 974 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). In addition, although defendant stated that he was taking sleeping medication "because of the stress," he further stated that it would not affect his ability to make "a proper decision," and "there is no indication in the record that defendant's ability to understand the plea proceeding was impaired" by the medication ( People v. Jackson, 85 A.D.3d 1697, 1698, 925 N.Y.S.2d 746 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 817, 929 N.Y.S.2d 806, 954 N.E.2d 97 [2011] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.