People v. Chicas

Opinion

People v Chicas

2026 NY Slip Op 04207

July 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Wilber Campos Chicas, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 1, 2026

2021-01437, (Ind. No. 789/19)

Betsy Barros, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Deborah A. Dowling

Carl J. Landicino, JJ.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered January 21, 2020, convicting him of attempted conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise this issue in the Supreme Court (see People v Sanzone, 244 AD3d 1143; People v Pena, 204 AD3d 940). In any event, the record reveals that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Pena, 204 AD3d at 941; People v Donovan, 133 AD3d 615).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to make a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is not properly before this Court, since, by entering a plea of guilty, the defendant forfeited for appellate review his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea negotiation process or sentencing (see People v Madison, 248 AD3d 943; People v Pena, 204 AD3d at 941). To the extent the defendant contends that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel involved the negotiation of the plea and affected the voluntariness thereof, the defendant's contention rests on matter outside the record and, thus, may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Pena, 204 AD3d at 941; People v Donovan, 133 AD3d at 615).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court