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
FINANCIAL ADVISOR IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL WHO CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN TORT BASED UPON A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
A RETROCESSIONAL INSURER WHICH PAID OUT A SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED IN THE UNDERLYING LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE, IS ENTITLED TO BRING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS FOR THE INSURED (FIRST DEPT).
Company Hired on On-Call Basis for Elevator Repair Not Liable for Allegedly Faulty Elevator Door Interlock Where Last Repair Made 13 Months Before Accident
DEFENDANT CANNOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING; HE MUST FIRST BE ADJUDICATED BY THE SORA COURT AND MAY SUBSEQUENTLY APPEAL REQUESTING AN ANNULMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden
THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS; IN THE ABSENCE OF A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE RISKS OF A HIGHWAY DESIGN, THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

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...