You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD THE COURT...

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD THE COURT WARNED HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA.

The First Department determined defendant did not meet his burden of proof on his claim that he would not have pled guilty the court’s failure to warn him of the deportation consequences of the plea:

By pleading guilty, defendant received a lenient disposition, which included a sentence of probation if he complied with all plea conditions. Defendant faced extensive prison terms if convicted after trial of the crimes that led to his 2002 and 2005 pleas, and acquittal of any of those crimes was unlikely. One of the two drug sales involved in the case resulting in the 2002 plea carried a potential life sentence, and the strength of the People’s case regarding those sales was apparent from the felony complaint. The facts set forth in the complaint supported a compelling inference that, in both instances, defendant was a participant in a drug-selling operation. A defense that, on two separate days, defendant did nothing more than innocently direct the undercover buyer to a source of drugs offered little hope of success. Defendant failed to demonstrate that he had significant ties to the United States. The evidence showed that he had a daughter in the Dominican Republic, but no family in the United States, at the time of his 2002 plea. Defendant’s claim of an impending marriage to a United States citizen was undermined by the fact that he did not marry that person, despite ample opportunity to do so long before being incarcerated and deported.

Accordingly, we conclude that defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to warn him of the immigration consequences of his plea at the 2002 proceeding, or by any misleading immigration-related remarks by his counsel at the 2005 proceeding, where defendant again received a lenient disposition involving yet another serious drug charge. People v Corporan, 2017 NY Slip Op 05178, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

You might also like
THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THE TOTALITY OF THE RECORD INDICATED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAIVED THE SPEEDY TRIAL RULE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.
Under the Criteria Recently Announced by the Court of Appeals, the Proof Was Not Sufficient to Justify Placing the Respondent Under Strict and Intensive Supervision in the Community
FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Comply with California Insurance Law Rendered Arbitration Clauses in Agreements Issued by a California Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carrier Unenforceable
In a Hybrid Action, the Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages Were Distinct from the Causes of Action Seeking Annulment of Town a Resolution/Four-Month Statute of Limitations Did Not Apply to Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages

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

LAWSUIT ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SOUND BASIC EDUCATION CAN PROCEED, BUT... THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED...