People v. Ropiza

• Decision Date: 21 November 2012
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Antonio ROPIZA, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 935

954 N.Y.S.2d 188

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08045

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Antonio ROPIZA, appellant.

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

Nov. 21, 2012.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered September 15, 2009, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court should have conducted a further inquiry before imposing sentence, based upon certain post-plea assertions made by him, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. James, 78 A.D.3d 965, 910 N.Y.S.2d 671;People v. Modesto, 39 A.D.3d 567, 835 N.Y.S.2d 220;People v. Cooper, 34 A.D.3d 827, 823 N.Y.S.2d 917;People v. Tinsley, 32 A.D.3d 447, 820 N.Y.S.2d 305). Moreover, the rare exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Modesto, 39 A.D.3d at 567, 835 N.Y.S.2d 220;People v. Cooper, 34 A.D.3d at 827, 823 N.Y.S.2d 917). In any event, the defendant's assertions do not warrant vacating his plea ( see People v. Modesto, 39 A.D.3d at 567, 835 N.Y.S.2d 220;People v. Cooper, 34 A.D.3d at 827, 823 N.Y.S.2d 917;People v. Tinsley, 32 A.D.3d 447, 820 N.Y.S.2d 305).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea ( see People v. Watt, 82 A.D.3d 912, 918 N.Y.S.2d 347;People v. Aguayo, 73 A.D.3d 938, 939, 899 N.Y.S.2d 878). To the extent the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Watt, 82 A.D.3d at 913, 918 N.Y.S.2d 347).

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal also precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence...