People v. Linares

• Decision Date: 09 April 2014
• Citation: 982 N.Y.S.2d 901,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02455,116 A.D.3d 792
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Henry LINARES, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

116 A.D.3d 792
982 N.Y.S.2d 901
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02455

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Henry LINARES, appellant.

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

April 9, 2014.

Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colangelo, J.), rendered January 20, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court improperly delegated its authority to the prosecutor to conduct the plea proceeding, during which the prosecutor allegedly misinformed him of the maximum sentence he faced for a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, thereby rendering his plea involuntary. However, the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise these issues before the County Court ( see People v. Folger, 110 A.D.3d 736, 971 N.Y.S.2d 890). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646). The plea proceeding was conducted in the County Court's presence and under its supervision, and was not an abrogation of the court's responsibility ( see People v. Adio, 111 A.D.3d 757, 758, 974 N.Y.S.2d 557;People v. Bethune, 91 A.D.3d 966, 937 N.Y.S.2d 596;People v. Smith, 306 A.D.2d 210, 211, 760 N.Y.S.2d 847;People v. Montanez, 287 A.D.2d 407, 408, 731 N.Y.S.2d 721;People v. Sanchez, 284 A.D.2d 137, 725 N.Y.S.2d 548;People v. Anthony, 188 A.D.2d 477, 591 N.Y.S.2d 181). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor correctly advised him of the maximum sentence he could receive on a conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony ( see Penal Law §§ 220.16, 70.70[2][a][i] ).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.