PEOPLE v. DESINO (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). We affirm.

At the outset, we conclude that there is no reason for us to address defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, inasmuch as defendant's substantive contention challenging the plea would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Williams, 198 A.D.3d 1308, 1309, 153 N.Y.S.3d 735 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1149, 159 N.Y.S.3d 325, 180 N.E.3d 489 [2021]; see also People v. Thompson, 219 A.D.3d 1666, 1667, 197 N.Y.S.3d 625 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 944, 206 N.Y.S.3d 255, 229 N.E.3d 1148 [2024]; People v. Brown, 151 A.D.3d 1951, 1951-1952, 59 N.Y.S.3d 227 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1124, 64 N.Y.S.3d 674, 86 N.E.3d 566 [2017]).

Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he did not understand the plea proceeding due to his limited education, the complexity of the rights he was forfeiting, and his lack of sufficient time to discuss the matter with counsel. By not moving to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve that contention (see People v. Seymore, 188 A.D.3d 1767, 1768, 135 N.Y.S.3d 745 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1100, 144 N.Y.S.3d 126, 167 N.E.3d 1261 [2021]; Brown, 151 A.D.3d at 1952, 59 N.Y.S.3d 227). We conclude in any event that defendant's contention is belied by his statements during the plea colloquy (see Brown, 151 A.D.3d at 1952, 59 N.Y.S.3d 227).