People v. Perez-Molina
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Perez-Molina
2026 NY Slip Op 04518
July 22, 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
Antonio Perez-Molina, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 22, 2026
2024-02742, (Ind. No. 70248/21)
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Paul Wooten
Laurence L. Love
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Alex Smith, Middletown, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered March 29, 2024, convicting him of operating as a major trafficker, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to make an inquiry during the plea proceeding as to whether he understood his right to discovery and was willing to waive that right is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was not made on that ground (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Johnson, 170 AD3d 1195, 1196), and we decline to review that contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Reviewing the record as a whole and the circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea of guilty (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1055), we conclude that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Dennis, 244 AD3d 997, 998). The defendant's assertions in support of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty were unsubstantiated and belied by his statements made at the plea proceeding (see People v Colonna, 239 AD3d 671, 671-672; People v Spring, 222 AD3d 665, 666-667).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant's contention that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Graham, 186 AD3d 1245) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Zitrenbaum, 231 AD3d 1064).
DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Perez-Molina (People v. Perez-Molina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.