PEOPLE v. DARLING

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Diane DARLING, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 17, 2006

PRESENT:  PIGOTT, JR., P.J., SCUDDER, KEHOE, SMITH, AND PINE, JJ. Kathleen E. Casey, Middleport, for Defendant-Appellant. David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Tracey A. Brunecz of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[12] ), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea.   We reject that contention (see generally People v. Klein, 11 A.D.3d 959, 783 N.Y.S.2d 177).   There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court was aware at the time of the plea that defendant had previously undergone psychiatric treatment, and “[t]here was not the slightest indication that defendant was uninformed, confused or incompetent” when she entered the plea (People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 486, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802;  see Klein, 11 A.D.3d at 959, 783 N.Y.S.2d 177).  “Defendant's belated and unsubstantiated assertion that the plea was the result of defendant's failure to take prescribed medication is insufficient to support the motion” (People v. Gonzales, 231 A.D.2d 939, 940, 647 N.Y.S.2d 900, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 923, 654 N.Y.S.2d 725, 677 N.E.2d 297).

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

MEMORANDUM: