People v. Rivera (Angel)

73 Misc. 3d 140(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 51184(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: December 15, 2021
• Docket: 570616/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Rivera (2021 NY Slip Op 51184(U)) [*1]

People v Rivera (Angel)

2021 NY Slip Op 51184(U) [73 Misc 3d 140(A)]

Decided on December 15, 2021

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 15, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Hagler, Silvera, JJ.
570616/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Angel Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Shahabuddeen A. Ally, J.), rendered August 5, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Shahabuddeen A. Ally, J.), rendered August 5, 2019, affirmed.

Our review of the record as a whole demonstrates that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Under the facts presented, the court was not required to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into defendant's medical condition. Defendant was rational and coherent throughout the plea proceedings, wherein he capably responded to the questions put to him, and gave no indication of mental impairment (see People v Ward, 168 AD3d 432 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 955 [2019]; People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]). Furthermore, defendant's counsel, who was in the best position to assess defendant's capacity, did not raise any issue with respect to his health and fitness to proceed (see People v Ragin, 136 AD3d 426, 427 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1074 [2016]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 15, 2021