People v Washington
2015 NY Slip Op 09309 [134 AD3d 963]
December 16, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2015


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Kevin Washington, Appellant.

Patrick Michael Megaro, Bay Shore, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jacqueline Rosenblum andRebecca L. Abensur of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Honorof, J.), rendered April 24, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (fourcounts) and petit larceny, 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 knowing and voluntarybecause the plea court failed to inquire into his mental capacity at the time of the pleaallocution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d 803, 804 [2012]; People v Perez, 65 AD3d1167 [2009]; People vGodfrey, 33 AD3d 623 [2006]). In any event, nothing in the record indicates aneed for the plea court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant's mental healthbefore accepting his plea of guilty (see People v DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d 1428, 1429 [2014];People v Godfrey, 33 AD3d at 624; People v Phillips, 243 AD2d 514,515 [1997]). Upon examination six weeks earlier by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, thedefendant had been found fit to proceed in the criminal action, and the defendant'sdemeanor at the plea allocution and responses to the plea court's inquiries wereappropriate (see People v DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d at 1429; People vGodfrey, 33 AD3d at 624; People v Phillips, 243 AD2d at 515; People vHollis, 204 AD2d 569 [1994]).

Contrary to the defendant's further contention, after his comments at the sentencingproceeding raised the possibility of a defense based upon mental disease or defect, thesentencing court conducted an adequate inquiry to ensure that the defendant's plea ofguilty was knowing and voluntary (see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662,666 [1988]; People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 355 [1967]). Balkin, J.P., Austin,Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.