You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE,...
,

ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT DIRECTLY INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter to allow defendant to move to withdraw his guilty plea, determined, although the co-defendant, in defendant’s presence, was informed of the possibility of deportation based upon the plea, the defendant, who did not speak English, was not directly so informed by the judge:

During that proceeding, the court posed a question directly to “Mr. Vidalis,” asking if the codefendant understood that he could be deported if he entered a plea of guilty, to which the codefendant answered in the affirmative. The court then stated to the defendant, “Mr. Tapia; do you understand that?” The defendant answered in the affirmative. The court then individually asked the codefendant and the defendant if they had fully discussed “the immigration consequences of this case with your attorney,” to which the defendant answered in the affirmative. However, the court did not specifically instruct the defendant, who required a Spanish interpreter to understand the court and had only a sixth-grade education, that he could be deported if he entered a plea of guilty, nor did the court use the words “deported” or “deportation” in any statement posed directly to the defendant. * * *

… [W]hile the plea record demonstrates that the Supreme Court specifically advised the codefendant of the possibility that he could be deported as a consequence of his plea, the court, in addressing the defendant, simply asked, “Mr. Tapia; do you understand that?” … . In light of the defendant’s limited education and need for a Spanish interpreter to understand the court’s remarks, the court’s limited inquiry as to whether the defendant understood “that” did not ensure the defendant’s understanding that he could be deported as a consequence of his own plea, as opposed to his mere recognition that the codefendant faced deportation consequences … . People v Tapia, 2021 NY Slip Op 01274, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

You might also like
DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
FALSE INFORMATION IN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BUT NOT DISMISSAL.
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE FLORIDA CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION HAD TERMINATED BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUDED CONCURRENT COUNT OF BURGLARY FIRST (SECOND DEPT).
THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED.
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF AFTER PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE OF TRAFFIC, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (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

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATING TO THE COURT THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS SLIP AND...