Opinion
11-24-2015
The PEOPLE & c., Respondent, v. Stephen PELLEGRINO, Appellant.
The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Yuval Simchi–Levi and Alan Gadlin of counsel), for respondent.
The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Yuval Simchi–Levi and Alan Gadlin of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.
A guilty plea is not invalid solely because the trial court failed to recite a defendant's constitutional rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 (decided herewith). The record as a whole, however, must affirmatively demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170 [1983] ). The Appellate Term correctly concluded that the record in this case affirmatively shows a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. Although he was initially charged with a felony, defendant pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution in the
fourth degree (Penal Law § 230.20 ), a class A misdemeanor, in exchange for a $250 fine. He discussed the plea with his attorney for two days and personally confirmed that he was pleading guilty of his own free will because he was, in fact, guilty of the charge. The court ensured that defendant was aware of any potential immigration consequences and also that the conviction would add to his criminal record. We are satisfied that these facts establish a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. People v Stephen Pellegrino
LIPPMAN, Chief Judge(dissenting):
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375, 23 N.Y.S.3d 124, 44 N.E.3d 199 (2015).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.
Judges PIGOTT, ABDUS–SALAAM, STEIN and FAHEY concur. Chief Judge LIPPMAN dissents in an opinion in which Judge RIVERA concurs.