People v. Peque

Citation2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06950,930 N.Y.S.2d 492,88 A.D.3d 1024
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Juan Jose PEQUE, also known as Juan Jose Peque Sicajan, Appellant.
Decision Date06 October 2011
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 1024
930 N.Y.S.2d 492
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06950

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Juan Jose PEQUE, also known as Juan Jose Peque Sicajan, Appellant.

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

Oct. 6, 2011.


Melissa A. Latino, Albany, for appellant.Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider–Ulacco of counsel), for respondent.Before: ROSE, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.MALONE JR., J.

[88 A.D.3d 1024] Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered November 6, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree.

Defendant, an illegal immigrant who was temporarily residing in a hotel located in the Town of Chemung, Chemung [88 A.D.3d 1025] County, forced a woman to have sexual intercourse with him in a bathroom stall of a bar located in the hotel. Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of rape in the first degree and pleaded guilty to the charge pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement whereby he was promised a sentence of 17 1/2 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court sentenced defendant as promised and defendant now appeals.

Defendant argues that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because neither County Court nor defense counsel advised him that he would be subject to deportation upon his conviction. Inasmuch as a defendant's potential for deportation is considered a collateral consequence of a criminal conviction, County Court's failure to advise defendant of such consequence does not render the plea invalid ( see CPL 220.50[7]; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 405, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995]; People v. Romero, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 918 N.Y.S.2d 730 [2011]; see also People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200, 205–206, 920 N.Y.S.2d 246, 945 N.E.2d 439 [2011] ). County Court engaged in a thorough plea colloquy wherein it adequately advised defendant of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, ascertained that defendant understood these rights and engaged in a satisfactory factual allocution. Accordingly, we find that defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v. Johnson, 21 A.D.3d 1149, 1149, 800 N.Y.S.2d 785 [2005]; People v. Ward, 2 A.D.3d 1219, 1219, 768 N.Y.S.2d 850 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 808, 781 N.Y.S.2d 308, 814 N.E.2d 480 [2004] ).

While counsel's failure to accurately and adequately...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Peque
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 2013
    ...him that he could be deported if he pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction (88 A.D.3d 1024, 1024–1025, 930 N.Y.S.2d 492 [3d Dept.2011] ). Relying on Ford, the Appellate Division found that “[i]nasmuch as a defendant's potential for deportation is considered a......
  • People v. Burch
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 19, 2012
    ...outside the record and, as such, is more appropriately addressed in the context of a CPL article 440 motion ( see People v. Peque, 88 A.D.3d 1024, 1025, 930 N.Y.S.2d 492 [2011] ). Finally, defendant's challenge to County Court's Sandoval ruling is unpreserved for our review ( see People v. ......
  • People v. Drammeh
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 7, 2012
    ...976 N.E.2d 216;People v. Crooks, 98 A.D.3d 630, 949 N.Y.S.2d 651;People v. Miller, 97 A.D.3d 607, 608, 947 N.Y.S.2d 331;People v. Peque, 88 A.D.3d 1024, 1025, 930 N.Y.S.2d 492,lv. granted19 N.Y.3d 976, 950 N.Y.S.2d 359, 973 N.E.2d 769, and lv. granted sub nom. People v. Peque Sicajan, 19 N.......
  • People v. Carty
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 7, 2012
    ...887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 [2005];People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 403–404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265 [1995];People v. Peque, 88 A.D.3d 1024, 1025, 930 N.Y.S.2d 492 [2011] ).Padilla spoke to the duties of defense counsel and did not expand the duties of a trial court in this regard ( see Peo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT