| People v Raymond |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03537 [150 AD3d 766] |
| May 3, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Carl Raymond, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Jared Chester ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino,J.), rendered June 7, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first 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 knowing and voluntary because theSupreme Court failed to inquire into his mental capacity at the time of the plea allocution isunpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Sulaiman, 134 AD3d 860, 861 [2015]; People v Washington, 134 AD3d 963 [2015]; People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d 803,804 [2012]; People v Perez, 65AD3d 1167 [2009]; People vGodfrey, 33 AD3d 623, 624 [2006]). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a needfor the court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant's mental health before acceptinghis plea of guilty (see People v Sulaiman, 134 AD3d at 861; People vWashington, 134 AD3d at 963-964; People v Godfrey, 33 AD3d at 624). Althoughthe defendant previously had been found unfit to proceed in the criminal action, within the monthbefore the plea proceeding, he was found fit to proceed, and his demeanor at the plea allocutionand responses to the court's inquiries were appropriate (see People v Washington, 134AD3d at 964; People v Godfrey, 33 AD3d at 624).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because theSupreme Court failed to advise him that the sentence would include a period of postreleasesupervision before he admitted to the factual allegations of the crime is also unpreserved forappellate review (see People vMurray, 15 NY3d 725, 727 [2010]). In any event, this contention is also without merit,as the record demonstrates that the defendant was advised of the period of postreleasesupervision at the plea allocution (seegenerally People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545 [2007]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalle andBrathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.