| People v Jones |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 04562 [207 AD3d 563] [207 AD3d 563] |
| July 13, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald Jones, Appellant. |
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William C. Milaccio andBrian R.Pouliot of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(GeorgeE. Fufidio, Jr., J.), rendered October 2, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the firstdegree (threecounts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea ofguilty, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree (three counts) andcriminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant was sentenced, as a secondviolentfelony offender, to a negotiated term of imprisonment.
The defendant's challenge to the procedure used to adjudicate him a second violentfelonyoffender (see CPL 400.15) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People vOliver, 63 NY2d 973, 974-975 [1984]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636,637[1983]; People v Momoh,192AD3d 915, 916-917 [2021]). Moreover, as a condition of his plea of guilty, thedefendantwaived his right to controvert the second violent felony offender statement offered by thePeople(see People v Blackwell, 151 AD2d 686, 686 [1989]; see also People v Jackson, 87 AD3d 552, 554 [2011];People vGottschalk, 204 AD2d 567, 567 [1994]). In any event, the defendant's contention iswithoutmerit, as the record reflects compliance with the requirements of CPL 400.15 (seeid.§ 400.15 [2], [4]; People vSmothers, 175 AD3d 1441, 1442 [2019]; People v Scott, 172 AD3d 912, 912 [2019]; People v Johnson, 157 AD3d817,817 [2018]).
The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty may not have been madeknowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently because of his purported history of mental illness isunpreserved forappellate review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Arce, 196 AD3d696, 696[2021]). In any event, the contention is without merit, as nothing in the record supportstheconclusion that, at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity tounderstand the nature of the proceedings or the consequences of his plea (see People v DeBenedetto, 120AD3d1428, 1429 [2014]; PeoplevBrooks, 89 AD3d 747, 747 [2011]). To the contrary, the defendant's "responsesat theplea and sentencing proceedings were appropriate and did not suggest that [ ]he wasincapacitated" (People v Arce, 196 AD3d at 697).
[*2] To the extent that the defendant's claim of ineffectiveassistance of counsel survives his plea of guilty (see People v Coverdale, 189 AD3d 1610, 1611 [2020]; People v Vicente, 167 AD3d951,952 [2018]), the contention is without merit. The record reflects that the defendant wasaffordedmeaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see also People v Bhuiyan, 181AD3d699, 701 [2020]), and the performance of the defendant's counsel did not fall below"anobjective standard of reasonableness" (Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668,688[1984]). Brathwaite Nelson, J.P., Miller, Wooten and Zayas, JJ., concur.