People v. Tofaj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tofaj

14 A.D.3d 734, 786 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 734 (People v. Tofaj) 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. Tofaj, 14 A.D.3d 734, 786 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered July 14, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree, waived his right to appeal and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary due to County Court’s failure to provide an interpreter is unpreserved for review because, although the court ordered an interpreter for all future proceedings, defendant never raised the issue at later proceedings where no interpreter was present nor did he object to the absence of an interpreter (see People v Fioravantes, 229 AD2d 784, 785 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 920 [1996]). Further, his failure to move either to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction precludes appellate review of his arguments regarding the interpreter and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Washington, 3 AD3d 741, 742 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]; People v Pagan, 284 AD2d 651, 652 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922 [2001]; People v Avila, 271 AD2d 541 [2000], lvs denied 95 NY2d 850, 853 [2000]). In any event, the record reveals that defendant was capable of understanding the proceedings in English (see People v Torres, 4 AD3d 624, 625 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 765 [2004]; People v Serna, 270 AD2d 646, 646 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 804 [2000]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are either barred by his waiver of appeal or are without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered July 14, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree, waived his right to appeal and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary due to County Court’s failure to provide an interpreter is unpreserved for review because, although the court ordered an interpreter for all future proceedings, defendant never raised the issue at later proceedings where no interpreter was present nor did he object to the absence of an interpreter (see People v Fioravantes, 229 AD2d 784, 785 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 920 [1996]). Further, his failure to move either to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction precludes appellate review of his arguments regarding the interpreter and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Washington, 3 AD3d 741, 742 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]; People v Pagan, 284 AD2d 651, 652 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922 [2001]; People v Avila, 271 AD2d 541 [2000], lvs denied 95 NY2d 850, 853 [2000]). In any event, the record reveals that defendant was capable of understanding the proceedings in English (see People v Torres, 4 AD3d 624, 625 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 765 [2004]; People v Serna, 270 AD2d 646, 646 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 804 [2000]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are either barred by his waiver of appeal or are without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 734, 786 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tofaj-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack