People v. Murray

2020 NY Slip Op 4492
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Murray. Read the opinion of the Court — 155 A.D.3d 1106
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 12, 2020·No. Ind. No. 17-00491·Published

Opinion

People v Murray (2020 NY Slip Op 04492)
People v Murray
2020 NY Slip Op 04492
Decided on August 12, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on August 12, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2018-13106
(Ind. No. 17-00491)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Michael G. Murray, appellant. Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, NY, for appellant.


David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (William C. Ghee of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Robert H. Freehill, J.), rendered October 4, 2018, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea of guilty is not preserved for appellate review, as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or otherwise object to it prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 214; People v Henriquez, 168 AD3d 876, 876-877). In any event, the record reflects that the plea of guilty was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v Haffiz, 19 NY3d 883, 884-885; People v Kovalsky, 166 AD3d 900, 901).

The defendant's contention that the County Court should have ordered a hearing pursuant to CPL article 730 to determine his competency is without merit. During the plea proceedings, the defendant assured the court that he did not suffer from any physical or mental condition which could affect his ability to understand and participate in the proceedings, and his responses to the court's inquires during the plea allocution did not suggest any lack of mental capacity (see People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d 803, 804; People v Johnson, 87 AD3d 1074; People v Hansen, 269 AD2d 467, 467-468).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

People v. Murray, 2020 NY Slip Op 4492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

2020 NY Slip Op 4492 (People v. Murray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The People v. Christian Williams
51 N.E.3d 528 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
People v. Haffiz
976 N.E.2d 216 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
People v. Johnson
87 A.D.3d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Pelaez
100 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Hansen
269 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)