People v. Tariq

• Decision Date: 15 November 2018
• Docket Number: 110181
• Citation: 166 A.D.3d 1248,88 N.Y.S.3d 275
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wahaj TARIQ, Also Known as Hodgee, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 1248
88 N.Y.S.3d 275

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Wahaj TARIQ, Also Known as Hodgee, Appellant.

110181

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

Calendar Date: October 19, 2018
Decided and Entered: November 15, 2018

Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant.

Joel E. Abelove, District Attorney, Troy (Jacob B. Sher of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J.

In satisfaction of a nine-count indictment, defendant, who is not a United States citizen, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. After defendant admitted to the second felony offender statement filed, County Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to a prison term of 4 ½ years followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that, because he was not adequately informed of the deportation consequences of his plea, the plea was not voluntarily entered and he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's contentions, however, are unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate

88 N.Y.S.3d 277

postallocution motion, nor did he make any statement during the plea colloquy that would trigger the exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Thomas , 153 A.D.3d 1445, 1446, 61 N.Y.S.3d 701 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1064, 71 N.Y.S.3d 14, 94 N.E.3d 496 [2017] ; People v. Balbuena , 123 A.D.3d 1384, 1385, 999 N.Y.S.2d 600 [2014] ). In any event, were we to consider the claims, we would find that his contentions are belied by the record. The record reflects that County Court informed defendant of the likely deportation consequences resulting from his plea, and defendant acknowledged that he had sufficient opportunity to discuss the deportation consequences with his attorney and...