| People v Amidon |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08807 [79 AD3d 1158] |
| December 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan R.Amidon, Appellant. |
—[*1] William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (Elizabeth S. Healy of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (DiStefano, J.),rendered June 5, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in thefirst degree.
After beating his then-girlfriend to death, defendant was charged with murder in the second degree,manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the first degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement,he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and waived hisright to appeal. County Court sentenced him to the agreed-upon prison term of 20 years followed byfive years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
Defendant contends that, because the record fails to sufficiently establish that the medication hewas taking did not affect his ability to understand the plea proceedings, his guilty plea was not knowing,intelligent and voluntary. As defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment ofconviction, this issue is unpreserved for our review (see People v Coons, 73 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2010], lv denied15 NY3d 803 [2010]; People v Gomez,72 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]). In any event, it lacks merit. County Court explained to defendantthe ramifications of pleading guilty, including the many rights that he would forfeit by doing so, anddefendant clearly and unequivocally communicated his understanding. Defendant acknowledged [*2]committing the acts comprising the elements of the crime and affirmedthat he wished to plead guilty and was doing so of his own free will. When defendant indicated that hehad taken prescription medication on the night prior to the plea, County Court thoroughly inquired as towhether the medication impaired his ability to understand the proceedings. Defendant affirmativelydenied any impairment and nothing in the record casts doubt upon his understanding (see People v Glynn, 73 AD3d 1290,1290-1291 [2010]; People v Gomez, 72 AD3d at 1338; People v Perry, 50 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2008], lv denied 10NY3d 963 [2008]). Inasmuch as the allocution as a whole demonstrates that defendant fullycomprehended the nature of his plea and its consequences, and nothing suggests that the medicationimpaired him in any way, we reject defendant's argument that the court was required to inquire furtherwith regard to possible effects of the medication (see People v Jenks, 69 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14NY3d 841 [2010]; People v Romano,45 AD3d 910, 915 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 770 [2008]; People v McCann,289 AD2d 703, 704 [2001]). Thus, we would find that defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily andintelligently made.
Defendant's argument that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure toadvise him of the time within which to file an appeal is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit inthe absence of any showing of prejudice (see People v Rowe, 284 AD2d 796 [2001], lvdenied 97 NY2d 643 [2001]). Finally, defendant's challenge to the severity of the bargained-forsentence is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Gentry, 68 AD3d 1353, 1355 [2009], lv denied14 NY3d 800 [2010]; People v Dixon,66 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 906 [2009]). Defendant's remainingcontentions have been reviewed and found unavailing.
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.