Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First DepartmentNov 20, 2007
45 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
45 A.D.3d 436844 N.Y.S.2d 8742007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9102

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Rosario

    …Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J. at pleas; Barbara F. Newman, J. at sentencing),…

  • People v. Ramirez

    …Moreover, inasmuch as his plea colloquy does not cast doubt upon his guilt or call the voluntariness of the…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 2100 1883/04 5513/04.

November 20, 2007.

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered January 11, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robin Nichinsky of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Hilary Hassler of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and Kavanagh, JJ.

Defendant's unpreserved challenges to the validity of his pleas do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that since defendant expressly stated that he spoke and understood English at the first plea proceeding, and indeed demonstrated that fact, there was no reason to provide an interpreter at any of the plea and sentencing proceedings, even though the court provided an interpreter at defendant's request at the second plea proceeding ( see People v Montano, 25 AD3d 323, lv denied 6 NY3d 851). The record also refutes defendant's assertion that the court misinformed him about the immigration consequences of his plea ( see CPL 220.50; Zhang v United States, 506 F3d 162 [2d Cir 2007]).

An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.