People v. Bonilla

17 A.D.3d 242, 793 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4200
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Bonilla. Read the opinion of the Court — 6 A.D.3d 1059

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered July 1, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three years to life, held in abeyance, motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice, and counsel directed to communicate to defendant, in Spanish, the same information already provided to defendant in counsel’s letter to defendant concerning the instant application for relief under People v Saunders (52 AD2d 833 [1976]).

Although counsel’s letter to defendant explained the substance and expected consequences of counsel’s Saunders brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, it was inadequate because it was written in English while the record reflects that defendant was aided by a Spanish interpreter at the plea and sentencing proceedings, and there is nothing to indicate that defendant understood the letter or that anything [243]*243was done to communicate its substance to him in Spanish (see United States v Leyba, 379 F3d 53 [2d Cir 2004]). Concur— Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

People v. Bonilla, 17 A.D.3d 242, 793 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

17 A.D.3d 242 (People v. Bonilla) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Ruben Leyba
379 F.3d 53 (Second Circuit, 2004)
People v. Saunders
52 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)