People v Palmer (2018 NY Slip Op 00638) People v Palmer 2018 NY Slip Op 00638 Decided on February 1, 2018 Appellate Division, First Department Manzanet-Daniels, J. 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 February 1, 2018 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department David Friedman,J.P. Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Barbara R. Kapnick Cynthia S. Kern Anil C. Singh,JJ. 627/08 4583 [*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDavid J. Palmer, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Di Mango, J. at plea; Michael Gross, J. at sentencing), rendered December 17, 2013, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson and Rafael Curbelo of counsel), for respondent. MANZANET-DANIELS, J. Defendant was born in Jamaica in 1971, and immigrated to the United States in 1994, when he was 23 years old. The Department of Probation's presentence report indicates that defendant was born in Jamaica, that he was a citizen of Jamaica, and that his alien status was "undocumented". Defendant has a long and documented history of mental illness, including schizophrenia and hallucinations. Among other things, he believes that he had the ability to heal others through his "exhaled gases," or what defendant refers to as his "vapor powers." From the time of his arraignment on March 31, 2008, until he pleaded guilty more than five years later, on December 6, 2013, defendant was repeatedly found unfit to assist in his own defense and confined to psychiatric prison wards. Even when found fit to proceed after a regimen of forced medication, doctors noted that he continued to suffer from persistent delusional and disordered thinking. On December 6, 2013, defendant entered a plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree, a class D felony, with the understanding that he would receive a 5-year sentence with 10 [*2]years' postrelease supervision. After swearing defendant in, the court asked whether he had the opportunity to consult with his attorney, to which defendant replied yes. He expressed satisfaction with the advice received from counsel. In response to further questioning, defendant replied that he was pleading guilty of his own volition. The court asked defendant whether he understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, and defendant replied in the affirmative. The court then asked whether defendant had committed the crime to which he was pleading guilty, and he replied yes. He denied being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When the court asked defendant whether he was a citizen of the United States, he summarily responded, "Yes, your Honor." Defense counsel did not correct defendant. While the dissent reads much into the bare-bones colloquy at the plea proceedings concerning defendant's immigration status, the matter was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals