People v. Yoho

Dec 22, 2005
Versions:24 A.D.3d 1247
808 N.Y.S.2d 856

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree (Penal Law § 221.20). County Court did not err in failing to order, sua sponte, a competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30 (1). Although defendant stated during the plea proceeding that he was taking medication and was being treated for a mental disability, defendant nonetheless responded appropriately to questioning by the court (see People v Planty, 238 AD2d 806, 807 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1098 [1997]) and was “unequivocal in assuring the court that he understood the meaning of the plea proceeding, and the implications of his decision to accept the plea agreement” (People v Helm, 178 AD2d 656, 656 [1991]; see People v Klein, 11 AD3d 959 [2004]). Moreover, defense counsel, who was ” ‘in the best position to assess defendant‘s capacity’ ” and was aware of defendant‘s mental illness, did not raise the issue of defendant‘s fitness to proceed or request an examination pursuant to CPL 730.30 (People v Brown, 9 AD3d 884, 885 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 671 [2004], quoting People v Carbonel, 296 AD2d 858, 858 [2002]). The waiver by defendant of his right to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the issue of the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]) and, in any event, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.