People v. Bamugo

• Decision Date: 17 November 2021
• Docket Number: Ind. Nos. 6930/18, 7723/18,2020–09400, 2020–09401
• Citation: 199 A.D.3d 928,154 N.Y.S.3d 467 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jeriah BAMUGO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

199 A.D.3d 928
154 N.Y.S.3d 467 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Jeriah BAMUGO, appellant.

2020–09400, 2020–09401
Ind. Nos. 6930/18, 7723/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—October 19, 2021
November 17, 2021

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Solomon Neubort, and Kamephis Perez of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dineen Ann Riviezzo, J.), both rendered February 6, 2020, convicting him of assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 6930/18, and sexual abuse in the first degree under Indictment No. 7723/18, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the matters are remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his pleas of guilty in accordance herewith, and for a report to this Court thereafter limited to the Supreme Court's findings with respect to whether the defendant has moved to vacate his pleas of guilty and, if so, whether he has established an entitlement to the withdrawal of his pleas, and the appeal is held

154 N.Y.S.3d 468

in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On appeal, the defendant contends that his pleas of guilty were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he is not a United States citizen and the Supreme Court never advised him of the possibility that he could be deported as a consequence of his pleas of guilty.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's contention that his due process rights were violated due to the Supreme Court's failure to warn him that his pleas could subject him to deportation is excepted from the requirement of...