People v. Concepcion

• Docket Number: 16585,Ind. No. 1295/15,Case Nos. 2016-1218, 2015-02922
• Decision Date: 03 November 2022
• Citation: 175 N.Y.S.3d 895 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Yelinton CONCEPCION, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

175 N.Y.S.3d 895 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Yelinton CONCEPCION, Defendant–Appellant.

16585

Ind. No. 1295/15

Case Nos. 2016-1218, 2015-02922

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

Entered November 3, 2022

Justine M. Luongo, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Lorraine Maddalo of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David Gagne of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Kern, Moulton, Mendez, Pitt, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered October 27, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the voluntariness of his guilty plea was impaired by misinformation about the permissible sentencing range (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ; People v. Powell, 159 A.D.3d 421, 421, 71 N.Y.S.3d 480 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1016, 78 N.Y.S.3d 286, 102 N.E.3d 1067 [2018] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court accurately described the applicable range of state prison sentences during the plea allocution. Defendant's claim of being "misinformed ... is unsupported by the record, which indicates that the court had no intention of imposing anything but a prison sentence, and that any mention of defendant receiving the ‘minimum’ sentence referred only to the minimum available prison sentence" ( id. at 421–422, 71 N.Y.S.3d 480 ). Furthermore, any deficiency in the court's explanation of defendant's sentencing exposure could not have affected his decision to plead guilty.

Based on our own interest of justice powers and the People's consent, we vacate the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing (see People v. Chirinos, 190 A.D.3d 434, 135 N.Y.S.3d 641 [1st Dept. 2021] ).