You are here: / / POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER...
, ,

POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED.

The Second Department sent the matter back for a report from Supreme Court because the possibility of deportation was not mentioned at the time of the guilty plea:

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court mentioned the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the defendant’s plea. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … , and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation … . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall state whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall set forth its finding as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing … . People v Agramonte, 2017 NY Slip Op 01876, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

CRIMINAL LAW (POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED)/DEPORATION (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Fall After Coverage Ceased Not Covered, Even though Dangerous Condition Alleged to Have Existed Before Termination of Coverage
Replevin and Order of Seizure (Asserting a Superior Right to Property) Explained
Surrogate’s Court Could Not Award Attorney’s Fees for Services Provided to Decedent’s Legatee (as Opposed to Services which Benefitted the Estate)
Flight Provided Justification for Pursuit.
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THIS DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST FORMED TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS (FIRST DEPT).
CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT, PROVISIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERA... IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS...