People v. Vasquez

Decision Date21 June 2011
Citation85 A.D.3d 1068,925 N.Y.S.2d 863,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05537
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Jose VASQUEZ, appellant.
CourtNew 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
2 cases
  • People v. Ramnaraine
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 21, 2011

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT