People v. Ramnaraine
| Decision Date | 14 February 2012 |
| Citation | 938 N.Y.S.2d 465,92 A.D.3d 809,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01285 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Vidyanand RAMNARAINE, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
The Mirvis Law Firm, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tony Mirvis of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Drake A. Colley of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), rendered August 2, 2010, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the County Court, Schenectady County (Cortese, J.), upon a finding that he violated a condition *466 thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his admission to violating the conditions of his probation was not voluntary because the Supreme Court failed to advise him about the deportation consequences of his admission ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Vasquez, 85 A.D.3d 1068, 925 N.Y.S.2d 863; People v. Decker, 83 A.D.3d 731, 732, 919 N.Y.S.2d 880). In any event, the Supreme Court's failure to advise the defendant of the possible deportation consequences of admitting to a probation violation did not render his admission involuntary ( see CPL 220.50[7]; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 403, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265; People v. Romero, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 918 N.Y.S.2d 730; cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel rests on matter dehors the record, which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919; People v. Griffith, 78 A.D.3d 1194, 1196, 913 N.Y.S.2d 264; People v. Wiedmer, 71 A.D.3d 1067, 896 N.Y.S.2d 686).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Drammeh
...v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Rosario, 93 A.D.3d 605, 941 N.Y.S.2d 122;People v. Ramnaraine, 92 A.D.3d 809, 938 N.Y.S.2d 465;People v. Diaz, 92 A.D.3d 413, 937 N.Y.S.2d 225,lv. granted19 N.Y.3d 972, 950 N.Y.S.2d 355, 973 N.E.2d 765;People v. Vasquez,......
-
People v. Bentil
...v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Drammeh, 100 A.D.3d 650, 651, 953 N.Y.S.2d 274;People v. Ramnaraine, 92 A.D.3d 809, 938 N.Y.S.2d 465;People v. Vasquez, 85 A.D.3d 1068, 925 N.Y.S.2d 863). In any event, the County Court advised the defendant of the depor......
-
People v. Soria
...v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Henson, 96 A.D.3d 1076, 946 N.Y.S.2d 897;People v. Ramnaraine, 92 A.D.3d 809, 938 N.Y.S.2d 465). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocuti......
-
People v. Hazel
...617 ; People v. Drammeh, 100 A.D.3d at 651, 953 N.Y.S.2d 274 ; People v. Soria, 99 A.D.3d 1027, 952 N.Y.S.2d 300 ; People v. Ramnaraine, 92 A.D.3d 809, 938 N.Y.S.2d 465 ). Neither claim falls within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d at 182–......