People v. Mohammed

• Decision Date: 27 October 1994
• Citation: 617 N.Y.S.2d 955,208 A.D.2d 1118
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amir MOHAMMED, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 955

617 N.Y.S.2d 955

208 A.D.2d 1118

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amir MOHAMMED, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Oct. 27, 1994.

Anthony A. Fazzone, Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, Dist. Atty. (Lara P. Standhart, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.

Before CREW, J.P., and CASEY, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

PETERS, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered August 12, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.

Originally indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree, defendant entered pleas of not guilty and the case was placed on the trial calendar. On July 26, 1991, he pleaded guilty to the second count of the indictment, in full satisfaction thereof, and waived his right to appeal. On August 12, 1991, after receipt of the probation report and in accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to the most lenient permissible sentence--an indeterminate prison sentence of 15 years to life. Defendant now appeals his conviction on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made and that he was denied his right to a fair trial as a result of an incompetent interpreter and coercion by his defense counsel to accept the plea arrangement.

Our review of the record reveals that defendant's plea was " 'a voluntary and intelligent choice among * * * alternative courses of action' " (People v. Legault, 180 A.D.2d 912, 913, 580 N.Y.S.2d 115, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1051, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 596 N.E.2d 416, quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162; see, People v. Di Paola, 143 A.D.2d 487, 532 N.Y.S.2d 606). He entered his plea and waived his right to appeal with full knowledge of the consequences of his actions after extensive advice from counsel. Further, his contention that this plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made due to his unfamiliarity with the English language is unavailing in light of the absence of evidence in the record that he was having trouble understanding the interpreter or the significance and effect of his plea and the rights that he was waiving (see, People v. Espinal, 176 A.D.2d 417, 574 N.Y.S.2d 406; People v. Martes, 154 A.D.2d 946, 545 N.Y.S.2d 885, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 870, 553 N.Y.S.2d 301, 552 N.E.2d 880; People v. Santana, 151 A.D.2d 518, 542 N.Y.S.2d 307). We note that defendant, a native of Afghanistan and speaking the language of Pushtu, was provided with an interpreter who spoke such language. County Court took great pains to ensure that defendant could understand his interpreter and that the interpreter understood defendant before the commencement of allocution.

The record further reflects that County Court painstakingly reviewed with defendant the rights he waived by his plea of guilty. Defense counsel also...