PEOPLE v. MAHOOD (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Richard Rich Jr., J.), rendered January 9, 2023, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree.  The charges stemmed from an incident wherein defendant discharged a loaded firearm inside of a local tavern.  Following numerous appearances before County Court, various motions by defense counsel, a Huntley hearing and two competency examinations pursuant to CPL article 730, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of five years, to be followed by 21/212 years of postrelease supervision.  County Court denied defendant's subsequent request for a sentence that did not involve incarceration and imposed the agreed-upon term of imprisonment.  This appeal by defendant ensued.  We affirm.

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and his related ineffective assistance of counsel claim (to the extent that it impacts upon the voluntariness of his plea) are unpreserved for our review absent an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. Fernandez, 234 A.D.3d 1207, 1208, 225 N.Y.S.3d 777 [3d Dept. 2025];  People v. Lunt, 232 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 222 N.Y.S.3d 718 [3d Dept. 2024];  People v. Werner, 227 A.D.3d 1273, 1273, 212 N.Y.S.3d 459 [3d Dept. 2024]), as is his assertion that County Court erred in accepting his plea without conducting a competency hearing (see People v. Lomack, 219 A.D.3d 1646, 1647–1648, 198 N.Y.S.3d 236 [3d Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1040, 200 N.Y.S.3d 764, 223 N.E.3d 1240 [2023];  People v. Hilts, 157 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 69 N.Y.S.3d 447 [3d Dept. 2018];  People v. Duffy, 126 A.D.3d 1142, 1142, 4 N.Y.S.3d 394 [3d Dept. 2015]).  The narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered, as defendant “did not make any statements during the plea colloquy or at the time of sentencing that negated an element of the charged crime[ ], were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea” (People v. Prime, 233 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 221 N.Y.S.3d 791 [3d Dept. 2024];  see People v. Tucker, 222 A.D.3d 1038, 1041, 200 N.Y.S.3d 798 [3d Dept. 2023];  People v. Penk, 220 A.D.3d 990, 991, 198 N.Y.S.3d 243 [3d Dept. 2023]).  Nor does the record reflect that “defendant's mental health issues interfered with his ability to understand the proceedings” (People v. Dolison, 189 A.D.3d 1779, 1780–1781, 136 N.Y.S.3d 547 [3d Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1119, 146 N.Y.S.3d 215, 169 N.E.3d 573 [2021];  see People v. Saunders, 204 A.D.3d 1257, 1257, 164 N.Y.S.3d 897 [3d Dept. 2022];  People v. Taylor, 194 A.D.3d 1264, 1265, 144 N.Y.S.3d 409 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 975, 150 N.Y.S.3d 684, 172 N.E.3d 797 [2021];  People v. Gumbs, 169 A.D.3d 1119, 1119, 92 N.Y.S.3d 758 [3d Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1105, 106 N.Y.S.3d 693, 130 N.E.3d 1303 [2019]).  Both of the psychiatrists who evaluated defendant found that he was competent to stand trial and assist in his defense.  Neither defendant's unwavering insistence that his alleged conduct was protected by the Second Amendment nor County Court's observation that defendant “just plain [did not] get it” provides a “reasonable basis upon which to believe that defendant was incapable of understanding the proceedings, incompetent or otherwise incapacitated to enter a knowing and voluntary plea or that a CPL article 730 competency hearing was warranted” (People v. Saunders, 204 A.D.3d at 1257, 164 N.Y.S.3d 897;  see People v. Gumbs, 169 A.D.3d at 1119–1120, 92 N.Y.S.3d 758).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Aarons, J.

Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.