PEOPLE v. ROJAS (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Stolz, J.), rendered April 5, 2017, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to five years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's challenges to the validity of his plea are unpreserved, and this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 381–382, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015]).  We decline to review defendant's claims in the interest of justice.

As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's arguments on the merits.  The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.  There is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's mental illness so impaired his ability to understand the plea proceeding as to require further inquiry by the court (see People v. Morales, 202 A.D.3d 548, 159 N.Y.S.3d 665 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1009, 168 N.Y.S.3d 362, 188 N.E.3d 554 [2022];  People v. Brown, 134 A.D.3d 554, 554–555, 20 N.Y.S.3d 888 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 993, 38 N.Y.S.3d 103, 59 N.E.3d 1215 [2016]).  Further, defendant was sufficiently apprised of the constitutional rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty, notwithstanding the court's omission of the word “jury” in reference to defendant's right to a trial, or lack of specific reference to the privilege against self-incrimination (see People v. Velez, 138 A.D.3d 418, 418, 27 N.Y.S.3d 868 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1140, 39 N.Y.S.3d 122, 61 N.E.3d 521 [2016];  People v. Terrell, 134 A.D.3d 651, 652, 21 N.Y.S.3d 619 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1075, 38 N.Y.S.3d 846, 60 N.E.3d 1212 [2016]).  The validity of the plea is further supported by the fact that defendant was represented by competent counsel, who confirmed that he had discussed the plea with defendant, and by the favorable plea bargain that defendant received (see Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199).

Defendant's contention that the plea colloquy was unclear or misleading is belied by the record.  The misstatements by the court were immediately corrected, and defendant confirmed that he understood the conditions of the plea.  The record establishes that defendant was aware of the count to which he was pleading guilty and that he was subject to a final order of protection.  The court had no duty to warn defendant of any potential future consequences of his plea (see People v. Parker, 309 A.D.2d 508, 509, 765 N.Y.S.2d 245 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 577, 775 N.Y.S.2d 793, 807 N.E.2d 906 [2003]).