People v Card (Sarita)

[*1] People v Card (Sarita) 2017 NY Slip Op 50446(U) Decided on April 10, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 10, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ
571141/15

The People of the State of New York,

against

Sarita Abigail Card, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J., at plea; Laurie Peterson, J., at sentencing), rendered November 5, 2015, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing her to three years' probation.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Melissa A. Crane, J., at plea; Laurie Peterson, J., at sentencing), rendered November 5, 2015, affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw her plea, after affording her a "reasonable opportunity to present [her] contentions" (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant's unsubstantiated allegations of mental infirmities did not provide a basis for allowing her to withdraw the plea (see People v Tejada, 36 AD3d 455 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 991 [2007]). Nor is there anything in the record to support defendant's assertion that her alleged mental health issues undermined her ability to understand the terms and consequences of her guilty plea (see People v Ernst, 144 AD3d 1605, 1606 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]), or otherwise "so stripped [her] of orientation or cognition that [s]he lacked the capacity to plead guilty" (People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 486 [2002]).

We are unpersuaded that the probationary sentence was unduly harsh or severe, and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Fair, 33 AD3d 558, 558 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). Further,defendant was sentenced in accordance with her plea bargain, and should not now "be heard to complain that [s]he received what [s]he bargained for" (id. at 558, quoting People v Chambers, 123 AD2d 270, 270 [1986]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 10, 2017