| People v Debberman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00251 [113 AD3d 929] |
| January 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JayDebberman, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County(Williams, J.), rendered October 13, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree.
Defendant and his father, codefendant Joseph Barton, were charged in an indictmentwith criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the fourth degree. Defendant elected to represent himself andmoved to suppress the seized marihuana that formed the basis for the charges. Pursuantto a plea agreement with both defendant and Barton, the pending suppression motion waswithdrawn, and defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in thefourth degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant and Barton thereafter sought towithdraw their guilty pleas. County Court denied the applications and sentenceddefendant, as agreed, to a conditional discharge. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. For the reasons stated in People v Barton (113 AD3d 927 [2014][decided herewith]), County Court properly denied defendant's application to withdrawhis guilty plea. Defendant additionally stated that he felt sleep-deprived during the pleacolloquy, but County Court appropriately relied upon his responses during the colloquyand "its own extensive observations of and interaction with defendant" in determiningthat defendant's purported fatigue did not call into question his ability to understand theproceedings (People v Mack, 90 AD3d [*2]1317,1318-1319 [2011]; see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]).
The bulk of defendant's further contentions—including that the seizedmarihuana should have been suppressed, that he was deprived of his right to due processoutside of the context of his guilty plea, that he was the victim of prosecutorialmisconduct and judicial bias, and that marihuana's purported role in his religiouspractices constituted a defense against the present prosecution—are precluded byhis valid plea and appeal waiver. His jurisdictional argument, while properly before us,has been considered and found to lack merit.
Peters, P.J., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.