People v. Montano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Montano

25 A.D.3d 323, 808 N.Y.S.2d 640

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 323 (People v. Montano) 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. Montano, 25 A.D.3d 323, 808 N.Y.S.2d 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered August 7, 2003, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing her to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of her plea does 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 it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. Since defendant expressly stated that she spoke and understood English, and indeed demonstrated that fact, there was no reason to provide an interpreter. The record refutes defendant’s assertion that the court misinformed her about the immigration consequences of her plea (see CPL 220.50 [7]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered August 7, 2003, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing her to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the validity of her plea does 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 it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea. Since defendant expressly stated that she spoke and understood English, and indeed demonstrated that fact, there was no reason to provide an interpreter. The record refutes defendant’s assertion that the court misinformed her about the immigration consequences of her plea (see CPL 220.50 [7]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 323, 808 N.Y.S.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-montano-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack