People v. Gonzalez-Mendoza

Opinion

People v Gonzalez-Mendoza

2026 NY Slip Op 05035

August 19, 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

Darwin S. Gonzalez-Mendoza, appellant.

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

Decided on August 19, 2026

2025-00655, (Ind. No. 70053/23)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Lourdes M. Ventura

Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.

Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.

Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, NY (MaryJane MacCrae of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Anthony R. Molé, J.), rendered March 20, 2024, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

As a threshold matter, we need not address the defendant's contention that his appeal waiver is invalid, since his only other contention concerns the voluntariness of his plea—a question that survives even a valid appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10). The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was involuntary because the County Court failed to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue in the court (see People v Pastor, 28 NY3d 1089, 1091; People v Bondoc-Gutierrez, 186 AD3d 726, 726). The defendant "was informed before he pleaded guilty of the possibility that he could be deported as a result of his plea, and if he was confused about that issue, he was obligated to move to withdraw his plea on that ground before the sentencing court" (People v Pastor, 28 NY3d at 1091; see People v Jules, 232 AD3d 909, 910). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt as to the crime to which he pleaded guilty, negate an essential element of that crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Bermudez-Cedillos, 228 AD3d 681, 682). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The record demonstrates that the court advised the defendant that he might be deported as a result of his guilty plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 197; People v Jules, 232 AD3d at 910). The court was not required to determine whether the crime carried mandatory deportation under federal law or to advise the defendant that his deportation was a certainty (see People v Arellano-Venegas, 198 AD3d 982, 983).

The record as a whole otherwise demonstrates that the defendant entered his plea understandingly, knowingly, and voluntarily (see generally People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382-384).

CONNOLLY, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court