People v. Alicea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alicea

106 A.D.3d 619, 965 N.Y.S.2d 713

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 28, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 619 (People v. Alicea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Alicea, 106 A.D.3d 619, 965 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme [620]*620Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., at first plea; Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at second plea; Patricia M. Nunez, J., at sentencing), rendered July 7, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; see also People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that, when viewed as a whole, the record of the two plea proceedings and the written plea agreement establish that defendant pleaded guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of his plea, including the prison and postrelease supervision terms he would be facing if he violated its conditions (see e.g. People v Thomas, 63 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 863 [2009]). The court’s explanation of the plea conditions was objectively clear (see People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]), and defendant had all the information he needed to “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme [620]*620Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., at first plea; Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at second plea; Patricia M. Nunez, J., at sentencing), rendered July 7, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenges to the validity of his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; see also People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that, when viewed as a whole, the record of the two plea proceedings and the written plea agreement establish that defendant pleaded guilty with full knowledge of the consequences of his plea, including the prison and postrelease supervision terms he would be facing if he violated its conditions (see e.g. People v Thomas, 63 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 863 [2009]). The court’s explanation of the plea conditions was objectively clear (see People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578, 580 [1976]), and defendant had all the information he needed to “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 619, 965 N.Y.S.2d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alicea-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack