PEOPLE v. CORREA (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Kiesel, J.), rendered October 29, 2021, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved, and this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]).  We decline to review defendant's claim 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.  Nothing in the record indicates that defendant's mental illness so impaired his ability to understand the proceeding as to require further inquiry into his mental competency (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]).  Rather, defendant responded appropriately and coherently to the court's questions and assured the court that he was pleading guilty of his own free will (see People v. Dwaileebe, 165 A.D.3d 588, 84 N.Y.S.3d 776 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1171, 97 N.Y.S.3d 629, 121 N.E.3d 257 [2019]).  Further, the record establishes that defendant had adequate opportunity to consult with counsel before entering the plea.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]), which forecloses review of his challenge to the grand jury proceeding (see People v. Fuller, 221 A.D.3d 433, 434, 200 N.Y.S.3d 3 [1st Dept. 2023]).  The court adequately explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial rights automatically forfeited by defendant's guilty plea and the appellate rights that survive a waiver, and any ambiguity in the colloquy was remedied by the written waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 738, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 [2006]).

Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited review of his claim that prosecutorial misconduct impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceedings (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 230–231, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773 [2000]).  In any event, the alleged errors did not rise to the level of impairment of the integrity of the proceedings (see People v. Thompson, 22 N.Y.3d 687, 699, 985 N.Y.S.2d 428, 8 N.E.3d 803 [2014]).