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
AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE BASED UPON A FINDING THE PLAINTIFF MAY NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE DECLARATORY RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER TOPPLED OVER, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE LADDER WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).
Consent to Divorce In Exchange for Payments Would Violate Public Policy
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Failure to Comply with CPL Re: Response to Jury Note Required Reversal
TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, APPOINTED A RECEIVER BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (SECOND 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

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