People v. Romero
| Decision Date | 15 March 2011 |
| Citation | 918 N.Y.S.2d 730,82 A.D.3d 1013 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Oscar H. ROMERO, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Maureen Galvin Dwyer, Northport, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered December 22, 2009, convicting him of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily ( see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646; People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his plea was not rendered invalid by the County Court's failure to advise him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea ( 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. Sanchez-Martinez, 35 A.D.3d 632, 633, 829 N.Y.S.2d 121; 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 mainly on matter dehors the record, which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see 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; People v. Alexander, 62 A.D.3d 719, 720, 877 N.Y.S.2d 696). To the extent this contention is reviewable on the record before us, we find that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v. Brooks, 36 A.D.3d 929, 930, 828 N.Y.S.2d 553; People v. Grimes, 35 A.D.3d 882, 883, 827 N.Y.S.2d 268).
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Spann
-
People v. Franco
...900;People v. Cancel, 92 A.D.3d 891, 891, 938 N.Y.S.2d 814;People v. Bivens, 88 A.D.3d 808, 809, 930 N.Y.S.2d 910;People v. Romero, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 918 N.Y.S.2d 730;People v. Burgess, 81 A.D.3d 969, 970, 917 N.Y.S.2d 881;People v. Anthoulis, 78 A.D.3d 854, 854–855, 910 N.Y.S.2d 370). ......
-
People v. Cohen
...( see People v. Cancel, 92 A.D.3d at 891, 938 N.Y.S.2d 814;People v. Bivens, 88 A.D.3d 808, 809, 930 N.Y.S.2d 910;People v. Romero, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1013, 918 N.Y.S.2d 730;People v. Burgess, 81 A.D.3d 969, 970, 917 N.Y.S.2d 881;People v. Anthoulis, 78 A.D.3d 854, 854–855, 910 N.Y.S.2d 370).S......
-
People v. Thomas
...render his plea 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 remaining contention raised in the defenda......