PEOPLE v. SAVVIDES (2026)

Judgment of conviction (Elizabeth Taylor, J.), rendered August 26, 2018, affirmed.

Assuming in defendant's favor that the plea court was under a duty to inform her of the immigration consequences of her guilty plea to this class A misdemeanor, an issue left open in People v Peque (22 NY3d 168, 197, n 9 [2013], cert denied 574 US 840 [2014]), a Peque hearing is not required in this particular case, inasmuch as we find no reasonable possibility that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice at a hearing, if one were held (see People v Singh, 185 AD3d 480 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1070 [2020]; People v Olmedo, 149 AD3d 588 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1084 [2017]).

The misdemeanor complaint established that defendant committed the offense of petit larceny. By pleading guilty, defendant received a favorable disposition - three days in jail. Defendant faced up to one year in prison if convicted after trial (see People v Manon, 151 AD3d 626 [2017]). Defendant also has an extraordinarily lengthy criminal record - that included 31 prior convictions for petit larceny and one felony conviction for burglary in the third degree - which already rendered her subject to deportation (see 8 USC § 1227 [a] [2] [A] [ii]; People v Lopez, 198 AD3d 515, 515 [2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 929 [2022]; People v Haley, 96 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1062 [2013]). In the circumstances, it is highly unlikely that defendant, if granted a hearing, could make the requisite showing that she was prejudiced by the plea court's failure to warn her of the possibility of deportation (see People v Olmedo, supra; People v Fernandez, 143 AD3d 505 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1123 [2016], quoting People v Diakite, 135 AD3d 533, 533 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1131 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.