People v. Lijin, 9026

• Decision Date: 18 April 2019
• Docket Number: Ind. 792/13,9026
• Citation: 171 A.D.3d 563,96 N.Y.S.3d 844 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roland LIJIN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

171 A.D.3d 563

96 N.Y.S.3d 844 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Roland LIJIN, Defendant–Appellant.

9026

Ind. 792/13

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

ENTERED: APRIL 18, 2019

Marianne Karas, Thornwood, for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alice Wiseman of counsel), for respondent.

Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.

Defendant's challenges to his plea allocution are unpreserved, and they do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ). We decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was entered into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 [1969] ; People v. Tyrell, 22 N.Y.3d 359, 365, 981 N.Y.S.2d 336, 4 N.E.3d 346 [2013] ). The court had no duty to warn defendant of the potential future collateral consequences of his plea. "[T]his Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that a defendant who pleads guilty is entitled to be advised of the effect of the plea on sentences he or she might receive for future crimes" ( People v. Parker, 309 A.D.2d 508, 508, 765 N.Y.S.2d 245 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 577, 775 N.Y.S.2d 793, 807 N.E.2d 906 [2003] ).