| People v Harden |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 06206 [175 AD3d 613] |
| August 21, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gerald Harden, Appellant. |
Christopher J. Cardinale, Walden, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss and JosephLeathem Leahy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Edward T.McLoughlin, J.), rendered May 31, 2016, convicting him of welfare fraud in the fourth 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 to withdraw theplea (see People v 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 plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (seePeople v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666;People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). Although the defendant testified at the pleahearing that he was taking a certain prescription medication, there is no basis in the record tosupport his contention that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him orthat he was unable to assist in his defense (see CPL 730.30 [1]; People v Morris, 147 AD3d 1083,1084 [2017]; People v Kelly, 121AD3d 713 [2014]; People vM'Lady, 59 AD3d 568 [2009]; People v Parker, 191 AD2d 717 [1993]). To thecontrary, the defendant's responses at the plea and sentencing proceedings were appropriate, anddid not indicate that he was incapacitated (see People v Morris, 147 AD3d at 1084; People v Thomas, 139 AD3d 986,987 [2016]; People v Narbonne, 131 AD3d at 627; People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d at568; People v Pryor, 11 AD3d565, 566 [2004]).
By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention that his motion to dismiss theindictment should have been granted on the ground that he did not earn income as an employee(see generally People v Price, 150AD3d 1153, 1154 [2017]; People vManragh, 150 AD3d 762 [2017], affd 32 NY3d 1101 [2018]). Leventhal, J.P.,Duffy, Barros and Iannacci, JJ., concur.