People v. Gomez

• Decision Date: 05 February 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Clemente GOMEZ, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

114 A.D.3d 701

979 N.Y.S.2d 828

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00684

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Clemente GOMEZ, appellant.

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

Feb. 5, 2014.

Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu, Laurie G. Sapakoff, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered September 27, 2011, convicting him of murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Pryor, 11 A.D.3d 565, 566, 782 N.Y.S.2d 803). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable here because the plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on the defendant's guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of the plea (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5). In any event, the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). The defendant's post-plea statements of innocence made to his probation officer which appear in the presentence investigation report did not warrant vacatur of his plea ( see People v. Ingram, 80 A.D.3d 713, 714, 914 N.Y.S.2d 316).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Montalvo, 105 A.D.3d 774, 775, 961 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Ramos, 77 A.D.3d 773, 774, 909 N.Y.S.2d 484; People v. Drago, 50 A.D.3d 920, 855 N.Y.S.2d 252). To the extent that the defendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea, his contention is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, upon matter appearing outside the record, and thus constitutes a “ ‘mixed claim[ ]’ of ineffective assistance” (People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386, quoting People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 572 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 325, 181 L.Ed.2d 201; see People v. Crawford, 106 A.D.3d 832, 833, 964 N.Y.S.2d 636; People v. McClurkin, 96 A.D.3d 784, 785–786, 945 N.Y.S.2d 718). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant...