| People v Winters |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04064 [73 AD3d 1277] |
| May 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shirley R.Winters, Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Victoria M. Esposito of counsel), forrespondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered June 16, 2008, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimeof manslaughter in the first degree.
In connection with the drowning death of the two-year-old victim, defendant pleaded guiltyto manslaughter in the first degree and waived her right to appeal. She was sentenced as a secondviolent felony offender to an agreed-upon sentence of 20 years followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. On appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred in not ordering acompetency hearing prior to accepting her plea and that her lack of competence rendered herappeal waiver and plea involuntary.
A defendant is presumed to be competent and a competency hearing is not warranted, as amatter of law, "unless the court has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of mental diseaseor defect, the defendant is incapable of assisting in his or her own defense or of understandingthe proceedings against him [or her]" (People v Trotter, 28 AD3d 947, 948 [2006] [internal quotationmarks and citations omitted], lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]; see People v Ortiz, 62 AD3d1034, 1034-1035 [2009]). Notably, "a defendant's history of psychiatric illness does not initself call into question defendant's competence" (People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 765[1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999]). Here, although the record indicates thatdefendant suffers from mental illness, defense counsel opposed the People's motion for acompetency hearing and repeatedly affirmed that defendant understood the nature of theproceedings and was [*2]able to participate in her own defense.Moreover, County Court noted its personal observations of defendant throughout theproceedings, during which she provided coherent and lucid responses to the court's questions,conferred with defense counsel and exhibited no signs that she lacked an understanding of theproceedings against her. Upon this record, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court notordering a CPL article 730 competency hearing (see id. at 766; People v Ortiz,62 AD3d at 1034-1035; People vBorom, 55 AD3d 1041, 1041-1042 [2008]).
Next, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that her waiver of the right to appealwas not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Nothing in the record casts doubt uponher capacity to understand the appeal waiver or otherwise invalidates the voluntariness thereof.Rather, the record establishes that defendant responded appropriately to County Court's inquiriesduring the plea colloquy, informing the court that although she was taking medication, thosemedications did not interfere with her ability to understand the plea proceedings. Furthermore,after County Court explained the ramifications of the waiver, defendant acknowledged that sheunderstood the terms thereof and then executed a detailed written appeal waiver in open court(see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d737, 738 [2006]).
Given defendant's valid appeal waiver, she is precluded from challenging the harshness ofher sentence (see People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Her waiver also precludes her claim that she was denied theeffective assistance of counsel (seePeople v Leigh, 71 AD3d 1288, 1288 [2010]), except insofar as that argumentimplicates the voluntariness of her plea. To that extent, the issue is nevertheless unpreserved forour review absent a motion to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Parara, 46 AD3d936, 937 [2007]). For the same reason, defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of her pleais also unpreserved (see People vSorey, 55 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 930 [2009]; People v Conway, 45 AD3d 1055,1056 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 763 [2008]).
Mercure, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.