PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell T. Wiley, J.), rendered November 21, 2023, convicting defendant, after his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 24 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea without appointing new counsel or conducting a hearing (see People v. Fisher, 28 NY3d 717, 721 [2017];  People v. Brown, 14 NY3d 113, 116 [2010] ).  Defendant's motion, based, in part, on allegations of coercion by counsel's depositing money in his commissary account and by the pain he was experiencing due to unrelieved gallstones are unavailing, as deposits to his account predated any plea negotiations and, as the court observed during the plea allocution, defendant was clearheaded and there was no indication he was in any discomfort at the time of the plea.  Defendant was also afforded the opportunity to confer with counsel at each request during the plea proceeding as well as beforehand.  Defendant's subsequent claim of legal innocence was unsupported given that his guilty plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently (see People v. Haffiz, 19 NY3d 883, 884 [2012] ).  Nothing in defendant's motion to withdraw his plea warranted minimal inquiry into any dispute between him and his counsel (see People v. Reed, 35 AD3d 194, 195 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 926 [2007] ).

Defendant's claim that he was not advised that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right against self-incrimination and that the decision not to testify could not be used against him are unpreserved, as he failed to raise this issue in his motion to withdraw his plea, nor was it raised by counsel at sentencing.  Preservation is required even as to a Boykin claim (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015];  see also People v. Pellegrino, 26 NY3d 1063, 1063 [2015] ).  Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and that there was nothing in defendant's factual allocution that cast doubt on his guilt.  A review of the plea colloquy otherwise reflects that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.  Having failed to allege that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment based on the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich (37 N.Y.2d 442, 445 [1975] ), defendant deprived the court of the opportunity to balance these factors and failed to preserve his current claim for this Court's review (see People v. Mendez, 259 A.D.2d 361, 361 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 974 [1999];  see also People v. Swails, 172 AD3d 579, 579–580 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1109 [2019] ).  Were we to review the claim, based on the record before us, under the circumstances of this case the delay was not so egregious as to warrant dismissal (see People v. Desselle, 167 AD3d 418, 418–419 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1203 [2019] ).

Defendant's claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss on constitutional speedy trial grounds is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not fully reflected in or explained by the record (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709 [1988];  People v. Powell, 185 AD3d 495, 495–496 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1096 [2020] ).  To the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714 [1998];  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [1984] ).