People v Debberman

People v Debberman 2014 NY Slip Op 00251 Decided on January 16, 2014 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: January 16, 2014
103822

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

JAY DEBBERMAN, Appellant.

Calendar Date: November 20, 2013
Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ.


Marshall Nadan, Kingston, for appellant, and appellant
pro se.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan
Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered October 13, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree.

Defendant and his father, codefendant Joseph Barton, were charged in an indictment with criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. Defendant elected to represent himself and moved to suppress the seized marihuana that formed the basis for the charges. Pursuant to a plea agreement with both defendant and Barton, the pending suppression motion was withdrawn, and defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant and Barton thereafter sought to withdraw their guilty pleas. County Court denied the applications and sentenced defendant, as agreed, to a conditional discharge. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. For the reasons stated in People v Barton (___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), County Court properly denied defendant's application to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant additionally stated that he felt sleep-deprived during the plea colloquy, but County Court appropriately relied upon his responses during the colloquy and "its own extensive observations of and interaction with defendant" in determining that defendant's purported fatigue did not call into question his ability to understand the proceedings (People v Mack, 90 AD3d [*2]1317, 1318-1319 [2011]; see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]).

The bulk of defendant's further contentions — including that the seized marihuana should have been suppressed, that he was deprived of his right to due process outside of the context of his guilty plea, that he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias, and that marihuana's purported role in his religious practices constituted a defense against the present prosecution — are precluded by his valid plea and appeal waiver. His jurisdictional argument, while properly before us, has been considered and found to lack merit.

Peters, P.J., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.