People v. Ramirez

• Decision Date: 22 February 1988
• Citation: 524 N.Y.S.2d 840,137 A.D.2d 770
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carmelo RAMIREZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 840

524 N.Y.S.2d 840

137 A.D.2d 770

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carmelo RAMIREZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Feb. 22, 1988.

William Lupo, Brooklyn (Joseph Ostrowsky, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Leonard Joblove, of counsel; Marcia Thurmond, on the brief), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN, WEINSTEIN and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered April 3, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was given an opportunity to address the court at the time of sentencing in connection with his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, CPL 220.60; People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544; People v. Morris, 118 A.D.2d 595, 596, 499 N.Y.S.2d 13, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 947, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 494 N.E.2d 125). The defendant failed at that time to assert any facts in support of his claim that he had a valid defense of justification, and so his current claim of innocence, which directly contradicts his plea allocution, was not substantiated ( see, People v. Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55, 57, 323 N.Y.S.2d 825, 272 N.E.2d 329; People v. Soto, 129 A.D.2d 748, 514 N.Y.S.2d 508, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 657, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1051, 512 N.E.2d 577). Also, the defendant's claim that he does not understand English is belied by a review of the extensive statements he made, in English, in response to various questions posed during the sentencing and plea proceedings, as well as during the course of his testimony before the Grand Jury. The defendant may not now claim that he misunderstood the terms of the plea bargain, which were clearly stated on the record and which are subject to but one interpretation ( see, People v. Cataldo, 39 N.Y.2d 578, 580, 384 N.Y.S.2d 763, 349 N.E.2d 863; People v. Welch, 129 A.D.2d 752, 514 N.Y.S.2d 513).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.