| People v Ollman |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00887 [147 AD3d 1452] |
| February 3, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Laigth A.Ollman, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
Cara A. Waldman, Fairport, for defendant-appellant.
Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), renderedAugust 19, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attemptedcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from three judgments, each of which convicted him, uponhis plea of guilty, of one count of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [1]). Each count arose from adistinct occurrence involving oxycodone pills. In all three appeals, defendant contends that hispleas should be vacated because, during the plea colloquy, County Court failed to conduct therequisite further inquiry after defendant negated an essential element of the crimes to which hepleaded guilty by stating that he had a valid prescription for the oxycodone pills and thus that hisattempted possession was not unlawful. We reject that contention. The record establishes that,during the plea colloquy, defendant did not state that he had a prescription for oxycodone but,rather, he stated that he had a prescription for a "different . . . medication." Wetherefore conclude that the colloquy did not negate an essential element of attempted criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and thus the court had no duty toconduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant understood the nature of the charges and thatthe pleas were intelligently entered (see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666[1988]).
Although defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during theplea bargaining stage survives his guilty pleas to the extent that he contends that his pleas wereinfected by the alleged ineffective assistance (see People v Neil, 112 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2013], lv denied23 NY3d 1040 [2014]), we reject that contention (see generally People v Ford, 86NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Specifically, defendant contends that defense counsel erred in allowinghim to plead guilty after he stated during the colloquy that he lawfully possessed the oxycodonebut, as noted herein, defendant did not in fact state that he had a prescription for the oxycodonepills. Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, DeJoseph and Scudder, JJ.