People v Williams (2019 NY Slip Op 09303) People v Williams 2019 NY Slip Op 09303 Decided on December 24, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on December 24, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department MARK C. DILLON, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ. 2018-01723 (Ind. No. 129/16) [*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent, vDeno Williams, also known as "G," appellant. Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered February 14, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim of ineffective assistance" (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v Freeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109). The defendant further contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary because the County Court did not advise him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea (see generally People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168). Under the circumstances of this case, where nothing in the record contradicts the defendant's statement made under oath, at the plea proceeding, that he was a citizen of the United States, or the information in the Department of Probation Presentence Investigation Report indicating that the defendant was a naturalized United States citizen, we reject the defendant's contention (see People v Tull, 159 AD3d 1387, 1387-1388). As the record is bereft of any evidence that the defendant is not a United States citizen, any issue relating to his citizenship status is not properly before us on his direct appeal. However, we take the opportunity to express our view that a trial court should not ask a defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen and decide whether to advise the defendant of the plea's deportation consequence based on the defendant's answer. Instead, a trial court should advise all defendants pleading guilty to felonies that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty plea may expose ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals