| People v DeBenedetto |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06326 [120 AD3d 1428] |
| September 24, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Yvonne DeBenedetto, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jacqueline Rosenblum andRebecca L. Abensur of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County(Ricigliano, J.), rendered April 8, 2013, convicting her of grand larceny in the seconddegree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty, aswell as the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry, rests largely within the sounddiscretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exerciseof discretion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010]; People vAlexander, 97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]; People v Bennett, 115 AD3d 973 [2014]; People v Howard, 109 AD3d487 [2013]). Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denyingthe defendant's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty without conducting a hearing. Therecord establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered. While the presentence report and the expert affirmation submittedin support of the defendant's motion indicated that the defendant had been diagnosedwith severe depression and anxiety, and had been prescribed medication to alleviate thesymptoms of those conditions, there is no basis in the record to support the conclusionthat, at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity to understandthe nature of the proceeding or the consequences of her plea (see People v Brooks, 89 AD3d747 [2011]; People vMiranda, 67 AD3d 709, 710 [2009]; People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d 568 [2009]; People v Ramos, 21 AD3d1125 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 737 [2006]). During the plea colloquy, thedefendant stated that her prescription medication did not affect her ability to understandthe nature of the proceedings, appropriately responded to the questions asked of her, andgave no indication that she was mentally incapacitated (see CPL 730.10 [1]; People v Ramos, 77 AD3d773 [2010]; People vGodfrey, 33 AD3d 623 [2006]; People v Ochoa, 179 AD2d 689 [1992]).Furthermore, the defendant's postplea claim of innocence, set forth in her motion papers,did not warrant granting her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty (see People vDixon, 29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; People v Soria, 99 AD3d 1027 [2012]; People vOchoa, 179 AD2d at 690).
The defendant's valid waiver of her right to appeal precludes review of hercontention [*2]that the sentence imposed was excessive(see People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992];People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Austin, Miller andMaltese, JJ., concur.