PEOPLE v. DULCE (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (April Newbauer, J.), rendered September 9, 2021, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a jail term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's challenges to the validity of his plea are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.  Defendant's challenge to his plea is not exempt from the preservation requirement.  While defendant had “no practical ability to object” since his plea and sentencing occurred during the same hearing, any error with his plea was not “clear from the face of the record” (cf.  People v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052, 1054, 23 N.Y.S.3d 121, 44 N.E.3d 196 [2015] ).

As an alternative holding, we find that the “totality of the circumstances” indicates that the plea was entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 382–383, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 [2015] ).  The record shows that defendant had an opportunity to confer with counsel both prior to the plea hearing and during the course of the hearing about the consequences of the plea, including immigration consequences (see People v. Vester, 226 A.D.3d 542, 543, 207 N.Y.S.3d 513 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1021, 214 N.Y.S.3d 319, 237 N.E.3d 1258 [2024] ).  The court repeatedly confirmed that defendant was knowingly and voluntarily entering his plea, and there is “no indication that defendant failed to understand the plea proceeding” (People v. Cordero, 238 A.D.3d 458, 459, 231 N.Y.S.3d 147 [1st Dept. 2025] ).