PEOPLE v. WALTERS (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered March 11, 2015, as amended April 2, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant contends that the court's failure to inform him of possible civil confinement pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.) rendered his plea involuntary.  However, defendant never moved to withdraw his plea and thus has failed to preserve his claim for appellate review (see People v. Johnson, 232 A.D.3d 940, 941, 219 N.Y.S.3d 815 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 945, 231 N.Y.S.3d 401, 257 N.E.3d 96 [2025];  People v. Madden, 112 A.D.3d 740, 741, 976 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2d Dept. 2013]).  Further, defendant has failed to develop a factual record sufficient to permit appellate review of his claim (see People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 773–774, 469 N.Y.S.2d 680, 457 N.E.2d 786 [1983]), which hinges on his knowledge, or lack thereof, of the potential SOMTA consequences of his guilty plea.  In any event, possible confinement pursuant to SOMTA is a collateral consequence of defendant's guilty plea, and the court's failure to discuss that possibility did not render the plea involuntary in this case (see People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200, 205, 920 N.Y.S.2d 246, 945 N.E.2d 439 [2011]).  The record did not establish that the prospect of SOMTA confinement was sufficiently realistic that he would have rejected the plea bargain had he been aware of SOMTA (see id. at 207, 920 N.Y.S.2d 246, 945 N.E.2d 439;  People v. Elliot, 227 A.D.3d 529, 209 N.Y.S.3d 417 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 970, 219 N.Y.S.3d 623, 244 N.E.3d 1082 [2024]).