People v. Mayfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayfield

208 A.D.2d 391, 618 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9487

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 391 (People v. Mayfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Mayfield, 208 A.D.2d 391, 618 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered January 23, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court was not obligated to hold a hearing to determine whether defendant was competent to enter a plea, there being no indication that he was not competent (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926). We reject his argument that his youth (17 years at the time of the plea) and inexperience with the [392]*392criminal justice system raised a question of fact as to his competence.

Nor do we find merit to defendant’s argument that his trial attorney did not provide him with meaningful representation by failing to advise the court of his age-based incompetency at the time of the plea. The record belies this assertion.

Finally, defendant’s constitutional challenge to Penal Law § 30.00 is unpreserved (People v Drummond, 40 NY2d 990, 993, cert denied sub nom. New York v Luis J., 431 US 908), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to address it, we would find no merit to defendant’s claim that reliance on chronological age constitutes arbitrary discrimination and violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions (see, People v Killeen, 198 AD2d 233, lv denied 82 NY2d 926). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered January 23, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court was not obligated to hold a hearing to determine whether defendant was competent to enter a plea, there being no indication that he was not competent (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926). We reject his argument that his youth (17 years at the time of the plea) and inexperience with the [392]*392criminal justice system raised a question of fact as to his competence.

Nor do we find merit to defendant’s argument that his trial attorney did not provide him with meaningful representation by failing to advise the court of his age-based incompetency at the time of the plea. The record belies this assertion.

Finally, defendant’s constitutional challenge to Penal Law § 30.00 is unpreserved (People v Drummond, 40 NY2d 990, 993, cert denied sub nom. New York v Luis J., 431 US 908), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to address it, we would find no merit to defendant’s claim that reliance on chronological age constitutes arbitrary discrimination and violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions (see, People v Killeen, 198 AD2d 233, lv denied 82 NY2d 926). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 391, 618 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayfield-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack