People v. Alexander

People v Alexander (2018 NY Slip Op 02190) People v Alexander 2018 NY Slip Op 02190 Decided on March 28, 2018 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 March 28, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. RUTH C. BALKIN FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ. 2014-06794 (Ind. No. 9119/11) [*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent, vKwane Alexander, appellant. Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ann Donnelly, J.), rendered July 9, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review, "as he failed to raise the issue or move to withdraw his plea despite indicating on the record that he was aware that there could be immigration consequences to pleading guilty" (People v Sanchez, 152 AD3d 548, 548; see People v Pastor, 28 NY3d 1089, 1091; People v Fernandez, 148 AD3d 1052, 1052). In any event, that contention is without merit, as the record of the plea proceeding indicates that the court fulfilled its obligation under People v Peque (22 NY3d 168) by advising the defendant that as a result of pleading guilty he could be deported (see id. at 197; People v Sanchez, 152 AD3d at 548). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's admonition that the defendant "could" be deported was not misleading, notwithstanding that the defendant was mandatorily deportable as a result of his plea and that defense counsel informed the defendant that a felony conviction "would" result in deportation. "[N]othing in Peque would require a plea court to ascertain whether a particular conviction carries mandatory deportation under federal law and advise a defendant accordingly" (People v Manuel, 143 AD3d 473, 474). "In any event, even where deportation is legally mandatory, as a practical matter it still requires the immigration authorities to take the necessary actions, and thus the deportation consequences of [a] defendant's plea could fairly be characterized as likely rather than absolutely certain" (People v Jimenez, 150 AD3d 408, 409). A defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and state constitutions (see People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 479; People v Bassi, 111 AD3d 845, 845; People v Bodden, 82 AD3d 781, 783; US Const Amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the federal standard set forth in Strickland v Washington (466 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals