| People v Narbonne |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06606 [131 AD3d 626] |
| August 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Isaac J. Narbonne, Appellant. |
Phillip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Seth B. Altman andAndrew Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Freehill, J.), rendered January 25, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, andintelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move towithdraw the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Canole, 123 AD3d940 [2014]; People vPryor, 11 AD3d 565, 566 [2004]). In any event, the plea was knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536,543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666; People v Harris, 61 NY2d9, 17 [1983]). While the presentence report indicated that the defendant had beenhospitalized and prescribed medication for psychosis and depression, there is no basis inthe record to support his contention that he lacked the capacity to understand theproceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his defense (see CPL730.30 [1]; People v Kelly,121 AD3d 713 [2014]; People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d 568 [2009]; People vParker, 191 AD2d 717 [1993]; People v Helm, 178 AD2d 656 [1991]). Tothe contrary, the defendant's responses at the plea and sentencing proceedings wereappropriate, and did not indicate that he was incapacitated (see People v M'Lady,59 AD3d at 568; People vPryor, 11 AD3d 565 [2004]). Under these circumstances, the County Court wasnot required to, sua sponte, direct a competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30 (see People v Monk, 29 AD3d605 [2006]; People vEherts, 21 AD3d 905 [2005]; People v Graham, 272 AD2d 479[2000]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court due to hisfailure to appeal from a judgment and amended judgment rendered January 6, 2012 (see People v Pagan, 27 AD3d580, 581 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.