| People v Eastman |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08677 [45 AD3d 1411] |
| November 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark D.Eastman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney, Oswego (Gregory S. Oakes of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), renderedMarch 22, 1999. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murderin the second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of twocounts of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [2]),defendant contends that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he madestatements at the time of sentencing concerning a prior head injury that called into question thevoluntariness of the plea, and County Court therefore should have conducted a further inquirywith respect to his mental impairment. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved hiscontention for our review, we conclude that it lacks merit. "Defendant's professed inability torecall the events forming the basis for the subject prosecution does not, as a matter of law,preclude a valid plea of guilty" (People v Di Paola, 143 AD2d 487, 488 [1988]; seealso People v Petix, 234 AD2d 994 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1098 [1997]). Thecourt conducted a thorough inquiry at the time of the plea with respect to defendant's inability torecall all of the events that occurred on the evening of the incident, and the record establishes thatdefendant understood the nature of the plea and the rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty(see Di Paola, 143 AD2d at 488). We note in addition that at the time of sentencingdefendant reiterated that he accepted the plea and that he was pleading guilty in order to avoid therisk of a lengthier sentence if he proceeded to trial (see People v Sherman, 8 AD3d 1026 [2004], lv denied 3NY3d 681 [2004]). To the extent that the contention of defendant that he was denied effectiveassistance of counsel survives the plea and defendant's waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Santos, 37 AD3d1141 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 950 [2007]), it is lacking in merit (see generallyPeople v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Lunn,Fahey and Pine, JJ.