People v. Vasquez
Decision Date | 21 June 2011 |
Citation | 85 A.D.3d 1068,925 N.Y.S.2d 863,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05537 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Jose VASQUEZ, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREMark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered November 7, 2008, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
*864 The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he was not advised that he would have to register as a sex offender is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hussain, 309 A.D.2d 818, 765 N.Y.S.2d 526) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 550, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048). In addition, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he was not properly advised by the County Court about the deportation consequences of the plea is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Mesquite, 234 A.D.2d 395, 651 N.Y.S.2d 546) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 403–404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265; CPL 220.50[7] ). Finally, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he was not advised about the issuance of an order of protection is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Dixon, 16 A.D.3d 517, 792 N.Y.S.2d 110) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Margillo, 69 A.D.3d 655, 655–656, 893 N.Y.S.2d 170).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Ramnaraine
...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 ......
- People v. Wallace