People v. Salgado

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07755,975 N.Y.S.2d 172,111 A.D.3d 859
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carlos SALGADO, appellant.
• Decision Date: 20 November 2013

111 A.D.3d 859
975 N.Y.S.2d 172
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07755

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Carlos SALGADO, appellant.

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

Nov. 20, 2013.

[975 N.Y.S.2d 173]

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645; People v. Batista, 100 A.D.3d 650, 952 N.Y.S.2d 903). Although the defendant signed a Rockland County pre-printed form waiver, as we have previously stated, this form “contained erroneous statements with regard to the waiver of the right to appeal” and should not have been utilized (People v. Edmunson, 109 A.D.3d 621, 622, 970 N.Y.S.2d 635). The Supreme Court's terse colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of his right to appeal. Further, the defendant never orally confirmed that he

[975 N.Y.S.2d 174]

grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d at 267, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645; cf. People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222; People v. Edmunson, 109 A.D.3d 621, 970 N.Y.S.2d 635). Under these circumstances, the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal.

The defendant's contentions that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made because his attorney coerced him and the Supreme Court failed to assign him new counsel are unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to vacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v. Wright, 95 A.D.3d 1046, 943 N.Y.S.2d 766; People v. Hammonds, 91 A.D.3d 791, 936 N.Y.S.2d 905; People v. Reynolds, 85 A.D.3d 825, 925 N.Y.S.2d 553). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit ( see People v. Wright, 95 A.D.3d 1046, 943 N.Y.S.2d 766; People v. Caruso, 88 A.D.3d 809, 810, 930 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Jackson, 87 A.D.3d 552, 553, 928 N.Y.S.2d 58). The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request to substitute counsel, which was based on conclusory statements ( see People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 99–100, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283; People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233; People v. Stevenson, 36 A.D.3d 634, 831 N.Y.S.2d 74). Moreover, nothing that occurred during the plea allocution called into question the voluntariness of the defendant's plea ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed, at sentencing, to argue mitigating factors in...