PEOPLE v. HILLAIRE (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cori H. Weston, J.), rendered October 3, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant neither moved to withdraw the plea nor articulated the ground he raises on appeal.  Thus, he has not preserved his contention that his plea was rendered involuntary by the court and his counsel allegedly “misinforming” him that the confidential informant was not relevant to a trial and would not be subject to cross-examination (see People v. Williams, 27 N.Y.3d 212, 214, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016];  People v. Elliot, 137 A.D.3d 715, 716, 27 N.Y.S.3d 386 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1131, 39 N.Y.S.3d 113, 61 N.E.3d 512 [2016]).  His claim also does not fall within the “narrow exception” to the preservation requirement, which exists “in rare cases where the defendant lacks a reasonable opportunity to object” to an error “which is clear on the face of the record and to which the court's attention should have been instantly drawn” (see Williams, 27 N.Y.3d at 214, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528).  We decline to review defendant's claim in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we find that the statements by the court and by counsel correctly informed defendant that the confidential informant was relevant to the probable cause determination but not to any trial issues, in the absence of any indication in the record that defendant expressed an interest in raising an entrapment defense and where entrapment would not be a viable defense (see generally People v. Brown, 82 N.Y.2d 869, 871, 609 N.Y.S.2d 164, 631 N.E.2d 106 [1993]).

Upon our review of the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, we find that the confidential informant existed, that the informant was reliable, and that the informant had ample basis for his or her knowledge that defendant possessed the firearm (see People v. Vasquez, 140 A.D.3d 571, 572, 34 N.Y.S.3d 441 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1076, 47 N.Y.S.3d 234, 69 N.E.3d 1030 [2016];  People v. Rivera, 138 A.D.3d 401, 402, 29 N.Y.S.3d 289 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 936, 40 N.Y.S.3d 364, 63 N.E.3d 84 [2016]).  In any event, the Darden hearing did not provide the only basis for probable cause, where the officers were able to observe the firearm on defendant's lap after they approached the vehicle.