| People v Wade |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06402 [110 AD3d 1113] |
| October 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vKendell Wade, Appellant. |
—[*1] Anna E. Remet, Special Prosecutor, Albany, for respondent.
Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn,J.), rendered April 23, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofmurder in the second degree.
Defendant fatally shot a male acquaintance following a dispute over a woman. As aresult, he was charged in an indictment with murder in the second degree andmanslaughter in the first degree. In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to murder inthe second degree. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on theground, among others, that his mental capacity was impaired by certain medications thathe was taking at the time he entered the plea. County Court denied the motion without ahearing and sentenced defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 18 years tolife in prison. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw hisplea because the medications he was taking interfered with his ability to enter a voluntaryplea. He maintains that County Court should, at the very least, have conducted a hearingon the matter, and that its failure to do so was also error. Initially, we note that " '[t]hedecision to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea is a matter within the trial court's sounddiscretion, and a hearing is required only where the record presents a genuine question offact as to its voluntariness' " (People v Russell, 79 AD3d 1530, 1530-1531 [2010],quoting People v Shovah,67 AD3d 1257, 1257 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 773 [2010] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Lane, 1 AD3d 801, 802 [2003], lvdenied 2 NY3d 742 [2004]). Upon reviewing the [*2]record here, we find no abuse of discretion in CountyCourt's denial of defendant's motion nor the existence of a question of fact requiring ahearing. Defendant did not present any medical proof in support of the motion toestablish that his mental state was impaired by medications he was taking (see People v Watkins, 107AD3d 1416, 1417 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d — [2013]). Notably,the psychologist who evaluated defendant did not indicate that he suffered from anycognitive deficiencies that compromised his mental capacity, but rather opined that hewas likely overemphasizing his psychological distress (see People v Gomez, 174AD2d 949 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 827 [1991]). Furthermore, a review of thetranscript of the plea proceeding reveals that defendant fully understood the nature of theproceeding and that he entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea (see People v Gordon, 107AD3d 739, 740, [2013]; People v Quinones, 51 AD3d 1226, 1228 [2008], lvdenied 10 NY3d 938 [2008]; People v Wilder, 246 AD2d 750, 750 [1998],lv denied 91 NY2d 1014 [1998]). In view of the foregoing, we find no reason todisturb the judgment of conviction.
Stein, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.