| People v Brooks |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07856 [89 AD3d 747] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Howard Brooks, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs,J.), rendered January 26, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion towithdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60 [3]). The record establishes that thedefendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. While thepresentence report indicated that the defendant had been diagnosed with attention deficithyperactivity disorder and bipolar disorder, there is no basis in the record to support theconclusion that, at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity tounderstand the nature of the proceeding or the consequences of his plea (see People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d568 [2009]). In denying the defendant's motion, the Supreme Court properly relied on theplea allocution and its own clear recollection of the defendant's demeanor and responses (seePeople v Rodriguez, 302 AD2d 317 [2003]). During the plea colloquy, the defendant capablyresponded to the questions put to him, and gave no indication of mental impairment which wouldhave alerted the Supreme Court to the need for a competency hearing or any further inquiry(see People v Young, 257 AD2d 764, 764 [1999]). The record of the plea proceedingreveals that the defendant was rational, coherent, and unequivocal in assuring the Supreme Courtthat he fully understood the meaning of his plea, and that he was pleading guilty of his own freewill (see People v Rodriguez, 302 AD2d at 317). Furthermore, the defendant's claim thathe was coerced into pleading guilty by his prior counsel is unsupported by the record (see People v Douglas, 83 AD3d1092, 1093 [2011]). Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.