People v. Doumbia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Doumbia

45 A.D.3d 436, 844 N.Y.S.2d 874

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 436 (People v. Doumbia) 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. Doumbia, 45 A.D.3d 436, 844 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County [437]*437(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.

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 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), 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 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 851 [2006]). The record also refutes defendant’s assertion that the court misinformed him about the immigration consequences of his plea (see CPL 220.50 [7]; Zhang v United States, 506 F3d 162 [2d Cir 2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County [437]*437(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.

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 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), 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 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 851 [2006]). The record also refutes defendant’s assertion that the court misinformed him about the immigration consequences of his plea (see CPL 220.50 [7]; Zhang v United States, 506 F3d 162 [2d Cir 2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 436, 844 N.Y.S.2d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-doumbia-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack