PEOPLE v. LAZARO (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven Statsinger, J.), rendered October 20, 2020, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to 10 years of probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that his plea was coerced by the court's comments regarding bail and defendant's entitlement to additional discovery material pursuant to CPL 245.25(2) because he never moved to withdraw his plea or moved to vacate his conviction (see People v. Delorbe, 35 N.Y.3d 112, 119, 125 N.Y.S.3d 327, 149 N.E.3d 20 [2020];  People v. Carota, 235 A.D.3d 1069, 1070–1071, 227 N.Y.S.3d 471 [3d Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 962, 232 N.Y.S.3d 430, 258 N.E.3d 1203 [2025]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.

The plea here, the result of counsel's comprehensive and dedicated advocacy, was carefully structured to enable defendant to serve jail time in advance of his plea in order to obtain a highly favorable probationary sentence that accounted for defendant's immigration status (see People v. Rojas, 227 A.D.3d 415, 415, 209 N.Y.S.3d 392 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 929, 216 N.Y.S.3d 119, 240 N.E.3d 838 [2024]).  During the one-year period between the date the plea agreement was negotiated and the sentencing proceeding, defendant never expressed in any way that he did not understand the plea bargain (see People v. Rochester, 236 A.D.3d 550, 551, 228 N.Y.S.3d 557 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1058, 239 N.Y.S.3d 98, 265 N.E.3d 1115 [2025]).  This case does not fall within the exception to preservation because it does not involve a “deficiency in the plea allocution” that “is so clear from the record that the court's attention should have been instantly drawn to the problem” (People v. Scott, 44 N.Y.3d 302, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01562, *2 [2025], quoting People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665–666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988]).

During the plea proceeding, defendant admitted his crime and acknowledged that he understood the court's instructions, had sufficient time to discuss the plea bargain with counsel, and understood what was happening in court (People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015]).  He also acknowledged that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and because he was guilty (see People v. Pellegrino, 26 N.Y.3d 1063, 1064, 23 N.Y.S.3d 145, 44 N.E.3d 220 [2015]).  Additionally, defendant “had sufficient opportunity to weigh the relative merits of the plea offered against the hazards of a trial” (People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 546, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 [1993]).  The court “conducted a thorough colloquy that established the voluntariness of the plea” (People v. Criscuolo, 200 A.D.3d 469, 470, 157 N.Y.S.3d 454 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 949, 165 N.Y.S.3d 464, 185 N.E.3d 985 [2022]).  Defendant's cognitive impairment did not impede his understanding of the court proceeding, and he did not at any time express an inability to understand the court's instructions and questions or complain that he had insufficient time to confer with counsel (see People v. Valdez, 138 A.D.3d 464, 465, 27 N.Y.S.3d 873 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1156, 39 N.Y.S.3d 390, 62 N.E.3d 130 [2016]).

CPL 245.25(2) was inapplicable to defendant's case because the plea offer was extended by the court and not the People.  Additionally, the court never threatened to reimpose bail or remand defendant if he did not plead guilty (cf.  People v. Sung Min, 249 A.D.2d 130, 132, 671 N.Y.S.2d 480 [1st Dept. 1998]).