| People v Colemanorange |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04455 [151 AD3d 738] |
| June 7, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tawana Colemanorange, Also Known as Tawana Coleman-Orange,Appellant. |
Matthew W. Brissenden, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy of counsel; Matthew C.Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.),rendered January 22, 2016, convicting her of assault in the second degree, upon her plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that her plea of guilty was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligentis unpreserved for appellate review, since she did not move to withdraw the plea (see Peoplev Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Narbonne, 131 AD3d 626, 627 [2015]; People v Canole, 123 AD3d 940[2014]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Contrary to the defendant'sfurther contention, there was nothing in the plea allocution that triggered the Supreme Court'sduty to inquire into a potential affirmative defense to the charge based upon mental disease ordefect (see Penal Law § 40.15; People v Thomas, 139 AD3d 986 [2016]; People v Serrano,160 AD2d 745, 746 [1990]; cf. People vMox, 20 NY3d 936, 939 [2012]). The fact that the defendant had been diagnosed withbipolar schizophrenia and was receiving medication did not trigger such a duty of inquiry (seePeople v Gelikkaya, 84 NY2d 456, 459 [1994]; People v Gensler, 72 NY2d 239, 244[1988]; People v Thomas, 139AD3d 986 [2016]).
Moreover, there is no support in the record for the defendant's contention that she lacked thecapacity to understand the proceedings against her or that she was unable to assist in her defense(see CPL 730.30 [1]; People vNarbonne, 131 AD3d 626, 627 [2015]; People v Kelly, 121 AD3d 713 [2014]; People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d 568[2009]). To the contrary, the defendant's responses at the plea and sentencing proceedings wereappropriate, and did not indicate that she was incapacitated (see People v Thomas, 139AD3d at 987; People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d at 568; People v Pryor, 11 AD3d 565, 566 [2004]). In addition, the twoCPL 730.30 examinations conducted two months after the defendant pleaded guilty are notevidence of the defendant's capacity at the time of her plea (see People v Gelikkaya, 84NY2d 456, 459-460 [1994]; People vCoons, 73 AD3d 1343, 1345 [2010]; People v Pena, 251 AD2d 26, 30-31[1998]). Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.