| People v Duffy |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02025 [126 AD3d 1142] |
| March 12, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Larry D. Duffy, Appellant. |
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Carole M. Cassidy of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith,J.), rendered July 23, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
Defendant waived indictment and entered a guilty plea to a superior court instrumentcharging him with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree,which also satisfied other charges. He was sentenced, as agreed, as a second felonyoffender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, and now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's contentions that his plea was not voluntary and that CountyCourt erred in accepting his guilty plea without conducting a hearing to determine hiscompetency were not preserved for our review by a postallocution motion to withdrawhis plea (see People vVandemark, 117 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 965[2014]; People v Bennett,30 AD3d 631, 631 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 809 [2006]; comparePeople v D'Adamo, 281 AD2d 751, 752-753 [2001]). Moreover, a defendant ispresumed competent and, absent reasonable grounds to believe that he or she is incapableof understanding the proceedings due to a mental disease or defect, a court is notrequired to order a competency hearing based solely upon a history of substance abuse ormental illness (see People vBlackmon, 122 AD3d 1071, 1072-1073 [2014]; People v Dowling, 92 AD3d1034, 1034 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 993 [2012]; People v Woodard, 17 AD3d929, 930 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 811 [2005]).
[*2] A review of the plea proceedings and defendant'sparticipation therein discloses nothing to support the conclusion that he was sufferingfrom mental illness or was under the influence of medication that clouded his judgmentso as to render him incapable of voluntarily entering a guilty plea (see People v Riley, 97 AD3d982, 983 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; compare People v Hennessey,111 AD3d 1166, 1167-1168 [2013]). Defendant provided coherent responses toCounty Court's inquiry, indicated that he understood and made no statements that calledinto question the voluntariness of his plea so as to alert the court of the need to inquire asto his competency or to hold a competency hearing (see CPL 730.30 [1];People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]; People v Tafari, 90 AD3d1341, 1342-1343 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 977 [2012]; People v Rought, 90 AD3d1247, 1248 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 962 [2012]). Although thepresentence investigation report reflects defendant's self-reported substance abuse historyand mental health problem for which he receives medication, "the record as a wholereflects no grounds to believe that defendant was incapable of understanding theproceedings against him due to mental disease or defect [or that he suffered medicationside-effects]" (People v Bennett, 30 AD3d at 631). Thus, we discern no error inthe court accepting defendant's guilty plea.
Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.