| People v Dantzler |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05032 [63 AD3d 1376] |
| June 18, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Dantzler,Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered November 5, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robberyin the first degree.
Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment stemming from his participation in anarmed robbery of a jewelry store in the Town of Union, Broome County. In full satisfaction ofthe indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the first degree and wassentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to a term of imprisonment of five years to be followedby five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contentions that his plea was not voluntarily or knowingly entered and that hewas denied the effective assistance of counsel are not preserved for our review given his failureto move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Creech, 56 AD3d899, 900 [2008]; People vSorey, 55 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 930 [2009]; People v Johnson, 54 AD3d 1133,1134 [2008]; People v Barclay, 1AD3d 705, 705 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 567 [2003]). With regard to the plea, "thenarrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable inasmuch as defendant did not makeany statements during his plea allocution which negated an essential element of the crime orotherwise cast significant [*2]doubt on his guilt" (People v Wright, 40 AD3d 1314,1314 [2007]). Even if defendant's arguments were preserved, they are without merit.
We note, in particular, that County Court's acceptance of defendant's guilty plea withoutholding a CPL article 730 hearing to determine his competency was not an abuse of discretion.Despite psychiatric determinations finding defendant incompetent approximately three monthsearlier, the most recent psychiatric evaluations—conducted after he had been consistentlytaking medication—resulted in findings that he was competent to stand trial. In addition,County Court had the opportunity to observe defendant at the time of his plea and the recordreflects that defendant's responses to the court's questions both prior to entering his plea andduring the plea colloquy itself indicated a complete understanding of the nature of theproceedings and his ability to participate in his own defense. Moreover, defendant did not makeany request for a hearing after completion of the second set of evaluations finding himcompetent. Under these circumstances, County Court was not required to conduct a hearing(see CPL 730.30 [2]; People vHarrison, 52 AD3d 969, 970 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 737 [2008]; Peoplev Barclay, 1 AD3d at 706). Similarly, there is nothing in the record to persuade us that weshould exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15) to reversedefendant's conviction based upon the quality of counsel's representation.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.