Opinion
2017–02697 Ind. No. 15–388
12-19-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Howard FACEY, Appellant.
Mani Tafari, Melville, NY, for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Amanda M. Doty, New City, of counsel), for respondent.
Mani Tafari, Melville, NY, for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Amanda M. Doty, New City, of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), rendered January 25, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Moore, 140 A.D.3d 1091, 1091, 34 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; People v. Bethea, 133 A.D.3d 1033, 1034, 19 N.Y.S.3d 191 ). However, the defendant's contentions regarding the voluntariness of his plea survive his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022 ; People v. Zapata, 158 A.D.3d 778, 68 N.Y.S.3d 757 ; People v. Squitieri, 157 A.D.3d 911, 67 N.Y.S.3d 479 ).
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the County Court failed to sufficiently advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea of guilty. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 183, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Mohammad, 148 A.D.3d 1185, 1186, 49 N.Y.S.3d 308 ; People v. Egbunike, 133 A.D.3d 776, 777, 19 N.Y.S.3d 184 ; People v. DiPietro, 115 A.D.3d 977, 977, 982 N.Y.S.2d 397 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. The court sufficiently discharged its duty to inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty by repeatedly stating that the plea could result in the defendant's deportation (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d at 197, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ; People v. Mohammad, 148 A.D.3d at 1185, 49 N.Y.S.3d 308 ; People v. Egbunike, 133 A.D.3d at 777, 19 N.Y.S.3d 184 ).
The defendant's remaining contention, that his admission that he may have consumed a small quantity of alcohol on the date of the plea undermines the validity of the plea, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Bevins, 27 A.D.3d 572, 573, 811 N.Y.S.2d 429 ). In any event, this contention is without merit where, as here, the County Court confirmed that the defendant was sober, coherent, alert, and competent on the date of the plea (see id. at 573, 811 N.Y.S.2d 429 ; People v. Galagan, 35 A.D.3d 973, 974, 824 N.Y.S.2d 819 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.