PEOPLE v. SALGADO (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered October 28, 2019, as amended January 6, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's unpreserved challenge to the voluntariness of his plea does not fall 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]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we find that, notwithstanding the court's purported failure to expressly confirm with defendant that he had not been forced to plead guilty, “the record as a whole, including defendant's acknowledged consultations with counsel” (People v. Cepeda, 195 A.D.3d 477, 477, 144 N.Y.S.3d 859 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 991, 152 N.Y.S.3d 406, 174 N.E.3d 346 [2021]), establishes that he made “a knowing and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action” (Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 384, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199).

Defendant's claim that his plea was coerced by the court is also unpreserved for our review (see People v. Diggs, 224 A.D.2d 311, 311, 638 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1st Dept. 1996], lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 846, 644 N.Y.S.2d 692, 667 N.E.2d 342 [1996]).  Were we to review it, we would find that this claim is belied by the record.  The court's participation in the plea-bargaining process was not improper (People v. Velez, 124 A.D.3d 468, 469, 1 N.Y.S.3d 87 [1st Dept. 2015]).