You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED.

The Second Department sent the matter back because defendant was not informed of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The court explained the relevant law and procedure:

​

In People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), the Court of Appeals held that, as part of its independent obligation to ascertain whether a defendant is pleading guilty voluntarily, a trial court must alert a noncitizen defendant that he or she may be deported as a consequence of the plea of guilty (see id. at 193). Although no particular litany is required, “[t]he trial court must provide a short, straightforward statement on the record notifying the defendant that, in sum and substance, if the defendant is not a United States citizen, he or she may be deported upon a guilty plea” (id. at 197).

​

Here, we agree with the defendant that the County Court did not provide him with such a statement on the record. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to reversal of the judgment of conviction at this juncture. In order to withdraw or obtain vacatur of a plea based upon a Peque error, “a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial had the trial court informed the defendant of potential deportation” (id. at 198). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the County 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 shall 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 (id. at 176 ,,, ). In its report to this Court, the County Court shall state whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall include its findings as to whether the defendant has made the requisite showing to entitle him to vacatur of the plea … . People v Lopez-Alvarado, 2017 NY Slip Op 03018, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED)/GUILTY PLEA (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED)

You might also like
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SLANTED FLOOR OF THE IN-GROUND POOL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WAY THE POOL WAS BUILT, THE LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DIVING ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
Police Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Justify Pursuit of Defendant; Street Stop (DeBour) Criteria Clearly Explained
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE.
Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement with the Plaintiff In Order to Be Entitled to Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff ‘s Subsequent Damages Suit (Plaintiff-Employee Is Not Entitled to Both Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Damages But an Unapproved Settlement Is Not Binding)
FATHER’S NONVOLUNTARY UNION DUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM HIS INCOME FOR CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Circumstances, Court Properly Considered New Information Presented in a Surreply

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

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION... COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE RELEASE TO THE PROSECUTION...