PEOPLE v. MORATAYA MENDEZ (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Jessica Segal, J.), rendered April 12, 2023, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the County Court failed to adequately advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea to that charge is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to raise the issue before the court or move to withdraw his plea (see People v. Pastor, 28 N.Y.3d 1089, 1091, 45 N.Y.S.3d 317, 68 N.E.3d 42;  People v. Bondoc–Gutierrez, 186 A.D.3d 726, 726, 127 N.Y.S.3d 268).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.  The court was not required to ascertain whether any particular conviction carries mandatory deportation under federal law and advise the defendant accordingly (see People v. Arellano–Venegas, 198 A.D.3d 982, 983, 155 N.Y.S.3d 582;  People v. Alexander, 159 A.D.3d 1019, 1019–1020, 73 N.Y.S.3d 593).

Moreover, the fact that the County Court inquired as to whether the defendant understood that as a result of his conviction he could be deported, and did not advise him that he would be deported, did not require counsel to object to or to correct the court's admonition, or to move to vacate the defendant's plea (see People v. Tariq, 166 A.D.3d 1248, 1248, 88 N.Y.S.3d 275;  People v. Alexander, 159 A.D.3d at 1021, 73 N.Y.S.3d 593).  Accordingly, the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, evidence of his postplea criminal conduct provided a legitimate basis for the enhancement of his sentence (see People v. Ford, 224 A.D.3d 847, 847, 206 N.Y.S.3d 122;  People v. Woods, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 55 N.Y.S.3d 780;  People v. Fumia, 104 A.D.3d 1281, 1282, 960 N.Y.S.2d 826).

The defendant's contention that his sentence violated the New York State and United States Constitutions’ prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Escalona, 237 A.D.3d 968, 971, 231 N.Y.S.3d 607).  Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Brisman, 43 N.Y.3d 322, 324, 235 N.Y.S.3d 248, 262 N.E.3d 249).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, TAYLOR and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.