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
THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
​THE BUYER WAS NOTIFED TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS REAL ESTATE DEAL AND WAS GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO CLOSE; THEREFORE THE BUYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE LIABILITY OF THE ELEVATOR COMPANY UNDER A NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE THEORY OR A RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY REQUIRED THE DENIAL OF THE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ELEVATOR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND THEN STOPPED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO READBACK THE CROSS OF AN IMPORTANT WITNESS PURSUANT TO THE JURY’S REQUEST REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THE BANK’S DISCONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT; THE REQUEST, AFTER DISCONTINUANCE, FOR A DECLARATION THE ACCELERATION HAD BEEN REVOKED WAS A REQUEST FOR AN IMPERMISSIBLE ADVISORY OPINION (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 © 2025 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...