People v. Delarossa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delarossa

57 A.D.3d 559, 867 N.Y.2d 700

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 559 (People v. Delarossa) 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. Delarossa, 57 A.D.3d 559, 867 N.Y.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court misadvised him concerning the immigration consequences of his plea is without merit (see CPL 220.50 [7]; cf. People v Argueta, 46 AD3d 46, 51 [2007]). The defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to negotiate a plea to a crime that would not have constituted an “ag[560]*560gravated felony” under federal law (8 USC § 1101 [a] [43] [B]) rests largely on matter dehors the record and, to that extent, it cannot be reviewed (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 532, 533 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). To the extent that the claim can be reviewed on the record, counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People v Browning, 44 AD3d 1067, 1067-1068 [2007]; People v Rodriguez, 32 AD3d 481, 482 [2006]; People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489 [2005]). Fisher, J.E, Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court misadvised him concerning the immigration consequences of his plea is without merit (see CPL 220.50 [7]; cf. People v Argueta, 46 AD3d 46, 51 [2007]). The defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to negotiate a plea to a crime that would not have constituted an “ag[560]*560gravated felony” under federal law (8 USC § 1101 [a] [43] [B]) rests largely on matter dehors the record and, to that extent, it cannot be reviewed (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 532, 533 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]). To the extent that the claim can be reviewed on the record, counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People v Browning, 44 AD3d 1067, 1067-1068 [2007]; People v Rodriguez, 32 AD3d 481, 482 [2006]; People v Reels, 17 AD3d 488, 489 [2005]). Fisher, J.E, Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 559, 867 N.Y.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delarossa-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack