Opinion
10042 Ind. 3795/16
10-10-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cherif CISSE, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered December 1, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, concurrent with 4 years' probation, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant has not established that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies to his Peque claim (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182–83, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 [2013], cert denied sub nom. Thomas v. New York, 574 U.S. ––––, 135 S Ct 90, 190 L.Ed.2d 75 [2014]. Defendant was informed of his potential deportation by way of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him in the presence of his attorney before his guilty plea (see e. g. People v. Arias, 170 A.D.3d 576, 94 N.Y.S.3d 851 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1066, 105 N.Y.S.3d 2, 129 N.E.3d 322 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Furthermore, defendant was independently aware of his potential deportation by virtue of being charged as a "Deportable Alien" in proceedings brought by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
We decline to review defendant's unpreserved claim in the interest of justice, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque, id. at 198–201, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617.