| People v Stover |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08675 [123 AD3d 1232] |
| December 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vChristopher Stover, Appellant. |
Michael I. Getz, Greenfield Center, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Lynch, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Drago, J.), rendered March 21, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of burglary in the second degree.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in thesecond degree and waived his right to appeal the conviction and sentence. He wassubsequently sentenced, as agreed, to a prison term of five years and 2
Defendant argues that he was not mentally competent to enter a plea and, while thatissue impacts the voluntariness of his plea and therefore survives his appeal waiver, it isunpreserved due to his apparent failure to apply for appropriate postallocution relief (see People v Vandemark, 117AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]; People v Chavis, 117 AD3d1193, 1194 [2014]). His argument that County Court "abused its discretion in notconducting a competency hearing prior to accepting [his] guilty plea is similarlyunpreserved" (People v Vandemark, 117 AD3d at 1340). Contrary to defendant'scontention, he admitted to committing the crime in question during the plea colloquy andsaid nothing that would "raise any question as to his guilt or voluntariness of his plea" soas to trigger the exception to the preservation rule (People v Klages, 90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], lvdenied 18 NY3d 925 [2012]; see People v Keyes, 300 AD2d 909, 909-910[2002]).
[*2] Even if defendant's claims werepreserved, we would find them to be without merit. We note that a criminal defendant ispresumed to be competent to stand trial (see People v Klages, 90 AD3d at 1150).A defendant with a history of mental illness may still be competent to enter a knowingand voluntary plea and such history does not necessarily require the trial court to direct aCPL article 730 hearing (see People v Chavis, 117 AD3d at 1194). Here, thecourt inquired with regard to defendant's mental health and observed that he was alertand responding appropriately (see People v Winters, 73 AD3d 1277, 1277-1278 [2010],lv denied 15 NY3d 811 [2010]; People v Gomez, 72 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]), and"nothing in the record of the plea proceedings suggested any impairment of defendant'sability to understand the proceedings" such as to warrant additional inquiry (People v Jenks, 69 AD3d1120, 1121 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 841 [2010]; see People vChavis, 117 AD3d at 1194).
The arguments raised by defendant in his pro se brief have been reviewed and areeither precluded by his valid appeal waiver or involve matters outside the record.
Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.