Opinion
15237 Ind. No. 3528/16 Case No. 2018–580
02-08-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ibrahim BAH, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jennifer Westphal of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jennifer Westphal of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Singh, Pitt, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.) rendered January 3, 2017, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to his plea is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The exception to the preservation rule set in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 (1988) does not apply here, because "[d]efendant said nothing during the plea colloquy or sentencing proceeding that negated an element of the crime or raised the possibility of a ... defense" ( People v. Pastor, 28 N.Y.3d 1089, 1090–1091, 45 N.Y.S.3d 317, 68 N.E.3d 42 [2016] ). Defendant asserts that his statements to the police suggested that he had an intoxication defense. "However, a plea court's duty to make a sua sponte inquiry is not triggered by a defendant's postarrest statements when the defendant does not reiterate those statements at the plea allocution" ( People v. Sosa, 172 A.D.3d 432, 433, 99 N.Y.S.3d 303 [1st Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). Defendant asserts that he also made statements suggesting an intoxication defense that are reflected in his presentence report. "However, there is likewise no duty on the part of the sentencing court to inquire into such out-of-court statements" ( id. ). In any event, nothing in the record casts doubt on the validity of the plea.
Defendant's request for a sentence reduction is moot because he has completed his entire sentence. "Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's request for a reduction of his already-completed sentence to 364 days is not moot because such relief would affect his deportation situation, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence" ( People v. Papanye, 159 A.D.3d 482, 483, 72 N.Y.S.3d 56 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1085, 79 N.Y.S.3d 107, 103 N.E.3d 1254 [2018] ).