Opinion
02-16-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dorcey LOVEJOY, Defendant–Appellant.
Wilens & Baker, New York (Daniel S. Kratka of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Eric C. Washer of counsel), for respondent.
Wilens & Baker, New York (Daniel S. Kratka of counsel), for appellant.Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Eric C. Washer of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, JJ., concur.Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J.), entered on or about June 11, 2014, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a 1999 judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's claim that the court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 [2013], cert. denied 574 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 90, 190 L.Ed.2d 75 [2014] ), is not properly raised in a CPL article 440.10 motion, because that claim would be "clear from the face of the record" (People v. Llibre, 125 A.D.3d 422, 423, 2 N.Y.S.3d 459 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 969, 18 N.Y.S.3d 605, 40 N.E.3d 583 [2015] ). While the remedy for a Peque error may involve a remand, upon the direct appeal, for fact-finding proceedings (22 N.Y.3d at 200–201, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 ), that circumstance does not permit a record-based Peque claim to be raised on a CPL 440.10 motion (Llibre, 125 A.D.3d at 423, 2 N.Y.S.3d 459 ).
Even if the statute permitted a record-based Peque claim to be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion, defendant's claim nonetheless would be unavailing. Although Peque is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal (People v. Brazil, 123 A.D.3d 466, 998 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1st Dept.2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1198, 16 N.Y.S.3d 521, 37 N.E.3d 1164 [2015] ), there is no basis to extend retroactivity to collateral review of convictions that have become final (Llibre, 125 A.D.3d at 424, 2 N.Y.S.3d 459 ).