Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David W. LAGAS, Also Known as Beaver, Appellant.
Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered September 6, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered June 12, 2007, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.
After waiving his right to court-appointed counsel, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to 2 to 4 years in prison for the convictions of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the second degree and one year for the convictions of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny, all to run concurrently, as well as restitution. A subsequent CPL 440.10 motion was denied without a hearing. Defendant now appeals both from the judgment of conviction and, by permission, from the order denying his CPL 440.10 motion.
Defendant initially contends that his guilty plea was obtained in violation of his right to counsel. We disagree. When a defendant waives his right to counsel, the trial court must conduct an inquiry to ensure the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently (see People v. Arroyo, 98 N.Y.2d 101, 103, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154 [2002]; accord People v. Maraj, 44 A.D.3d 1090, 1092, 845 N.Y.S.2d 134 [2007] ). Here, the record reveals that County Court conducted a searching inquiry, which included inquiries into defendant's age, education, his mental and physical condition, and whether he understood his right to counsel and was freely waiving it. We are therefore satisfied that County Court established that defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v. McEachin, 29 A.D.3d 1221, 1222, 815 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 903, 826 N.Y.S.2d 612, 860 N.E.2d 74 [2006]; People v. Whitted, 16 A.D.3d 905, 907-908, 791 N.Y.S.2d 714 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 892, 798 N.Y.S.2d 737, 831 N.E.2d 982 [2005] ).1
We also find defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing to be without merit. Here, as defendant's claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered can be determined on the record and was reviewable on direct appeal, County Court properly denied the motion without a hearing (see CPL 440.10[2] [b]; People v. Lahon, 17 A.D.3d 778, 780, 793 N.Y.S.2d 238 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 790, 801 N.Y.S.2d 811, 835 N.E.2d 671 [2005]; People v. Beverly, 5 A.D.3d 862, 865, 772 N.Y.S.2d 763 [2004], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 796, 781 N.Y.S.2d 295, 814 N.E.2d 467 [2004] ). Furthermore, as defendant's claim that his right to counsel was violated in proceedings prior to his plea was based on facts that, with defendant's due diligence, could have been placed on the record enabling review on direct appeal, no hearing was required (see CPL 440.10[3]; People v. Berezansky, 229 A.D.2d 768, 771, 646 N.Y.S.2d 574 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 919, 654 N.Y.S.2d 721, 677 N.E.2d 293 [1996] ). Finally, defendant's remaining claims were either waived by his guilty plea (see People v. Parilla, 8 N.Y.3d 654, 659, 838 N.Y.S.2d 824, 870 N.E.2d 142 [2007]; People v. Dennis, 223 A.D.2d 814, 815, 636 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1996], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 972, 642 N.Y.S.2d 201, 664 N.E.2d 1264 [1996] ) or are too vague and unsupported to warrant a hearing (see People v. Chaffee, 30 A.D.3d 763, 765, 816 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 846, 823 N.Y.S.2d 776, 857 N.E.2d 71 [2006] ).
ORDERED that the judgment and order are affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Notably, a court-appointed advisory attorney was present at the time the plea was entered.
PETERS, J.P.
CARPINELLO, KANE, KAVANAGH and STEIN, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 20, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)