GAST, RONALD, PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    827
    KA 10-01120
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    RONALD F. GAST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (VINCENT F. GUGINO OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell
    P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 15, 2008. The judgment
    convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession
    of stolen property in the fourth degree and attempted forgery in the
    second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in
    the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [2]) and attempted forgery in
    the second degree (§§ 110.00, 170.10 [1]). Defendant contends that
    reversal is required because Supreme Court failed to make a sufficient
    inquiry whether defendant’s alleged lack of necessary medication
    affected his ability to enter a knowing, voluntary and intelligent
    plea. Although defendant’s contention survives his valid waiver of
    the right to appeal (see People v Brown, 66 AD3d 1385, lv denied 14
    NY3d 839), defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate
    the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve his contention
    for our review (see People v Garrett, 60 AD3d 1389). In any event,
    defendant’s contention is without merit. The court conducted a
    thorough inquiry into defendant’s ability to enter the plea, and
    defendant stated that his lack of medication did not affect that
    ability. Defendant’s answers to the questions of the court indicate
    that defendant understood the terms and consequences of the plea (see
    People v Sonberg, 61 AD3d 1350, lv denied 13 NY3d 800; see generally
    People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486).
    Entered:   July 1, 2011                            Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 10-01120

Filed Date: 7/1/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016