People v. Marte-Feliz

17 Citing cases

  1. People v. Baez-Arias

    203 A.D.3d 1409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 7 times

    "The Court of Appeals has recognized that, ‘because deportation is so closely related to the criminal process and carries such high stakes for noncitizen defendants, a defense attorney deprives a noncitizen defendant of his or her Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to advise, or by misadvising, the defendant about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea’ " ( People v. Lawrence, 148 A.D.3d 1472, 1473, 52 N.Y.S.3d 505 [2017], quoting People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 190, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 [2013] ; seePadilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366–374, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 [2010] ). As a result of such a failure, "counsel's representation would fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and thereby satisfy the first prong of the test set forth in Padilla for determining whether a defendant was deprived of his or her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel" ( People v. Marte–Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 144 N.Y.S.3d 255 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; seePeople v. Oouch, 97 A.D.3d 904, 905, 948 N.Y.S.2d 453 [2012] ). The second prong of the Padilla test "requires a determination of whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different" ( People v. Oouch, 97 A.D.3d at 905, 948 N.Y.S.2d 453 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; seePeople v. Rajpaul, 100 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 954 N.Y.S.2d 249 [2012] ).

  2. People v. Podeswa

    205 A.D.3d 1139 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 15 times

    Turning now to defendant's CPL 440.10 motion, "[o]n a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, a hearing is only required if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief. Furthermore, a court may deny a vacatur motion without a hearing if it is based on the defendant's self-serving claims that are contradicted by the record or unsupported by any other evidence" ( People v. Marte–Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1397–1398, 144 N.Y.S.3d 255 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see CPL 440.30[4] ; People v. Beverly, 196 A.D.3d 864, 865, 151 N.Y.S.3d 247 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1058, 154 N.Y.S.3d 628, 176 N.E.3d 664 [2021] ). Initially, inasmuch as defendant's arguments of ineffective assistance of counsel involve both record and nonrecord-based claims, Supreme Court erred in failing to address these claims in their entirety as part of a review of counsel's overall performance in the context of the CPL article 440 motion (seePeople v. Drayton, 189 A.D.3d 1888, 1891–1892, 138 N.Y.S.3d 275 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1119, 146 N.Y.S.3d 216, 169 N.E.3d 574 [2021] ; People v. Taylor, 156 A.D.3d 86, 91–92, 64 N.Y.S.3d 714 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1120, 77 N.Y.S.3d 345, 101 N.E.3d 986 [2018] ).

  3. People v. Podeswa

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    Turning now to defendant's CPL 440.10 motion, "[o]n a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, a hearing is only required if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief. Furthermore, a court may deny a vacatur motion without a hearing if it is based on the defendant's self-serving claims that are contradicted by the record or unsupported by any other evidence" (People v Marte-Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1397-1398 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see CPL 440.30 [4]; People v Beverly, 196 A.D.3d 864, 865 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1058 [2021]). Initially, inasmuch as defendant's arguments of ineffective assistance of counsel involve both record and nonrecord-based claims, Supreme Court erred in failing to address these claims in their entirety as part of a review of counsel's overall performance in the context of the CPL article 440 motion (see People v Drayton, 189 A.D.3d 1888, 1891-1892 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1119 [2021]; People v Taylor, 156 A.D.3d 86, 91-92 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1120 [2018]).

  4. People v. Durham

    No. 2021-04060 (N.Y. App. Div. Jun. 24, 2021)

    By its very nature, the procedure cannot be used as a vehicle for an additional appeal" (People v Spradlin, 192 A.D.3d 1270, 1273 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied ___ N.Y.3d ___ [May 24, 2021]). "On a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, a hearing is only required if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief" (People v Gassner, 193 A.D.3d 1182, 1185 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied ___ N.Y.3d ___ [May 25, 2021]; see People v Marte-Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1397-1398 [2021]). Consistent therewith, "[a] court may deny a CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing where an allegation of fact essential to support the motion is made solely by the defendant and is unsupported by any other affidavit or evidence and, under all of the circumstances of the case, there is no reasonable possibility that such allegation is true" (People v Hoffler, 74 A.D.3d 1632, 1634-1635 [2010] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 859 [2011]; see People v Marte-Feliz, 192 A.D.3d at 1398; People v Stanley, 189 A.D.3d 1818, 1819 [2020]; People v Betances, 179 A.D.3d 1225, 1226 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 968 [2020]).

  5. People v. Baez-Arias

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1852 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    (People v Lawrence, 148 A.D.3d 1472, 1473 [2017], quoting People v Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 190 [2013]; see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366-374 [2010]). As a result of such a failure, "counsel's representation would fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and thereby satisfy the first prong of the test set forth in Padilla for determining whether a defendant was deprived of his or her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel" (People v Marte-Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1398 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Oouch, 97 A.D.3d 904, 905 [2012]). The second prong of the Padilla test "requires a determination of whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"

  6. People v. Philippe

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    "Given that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impacts the voluntariness of his plea, it is not precluded by his unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal and was preserved by an appropriate postallocution motion" (People v Marte-Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1398 [3d Dept 2021] [citations omitted]; see People v Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182 [2013], cert denied 574 U.S. 840 [2014]).

  7. People v. Marcellus

    223 A.D.3d 1051 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    But when the deportation consequence is truly clear..., the duty to give correct advice is equally clear" (Padilla v Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 [2010] [footnote omitted]; see People v Baret, 23 N.Y.3d 777, 797 [2014], cert denied 574 U.S. 1085 [2015]; People v Loaiza, 158 A.D.3d 775, 776 [2d Dept 2018]; People v Abdallah, 153 A.D.3d at 1426; People v Lawrence, 148 A.D.3d 1472, 1473 [3d Dept 2017]). Although factually distinguishable, to the extent this Court's prior decision in People v Marte-Feliz (192 A.D.3d 1397 [3d Dept 2021]) could be read as holding otherwise, that language should not be followed (see id. at 1398).

  8. People v. Kuhn

    221 A.D.3d 1182 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 9 times

    Defendant's motion to vacate is supported solely by his own conclusory affidavits, and no affidavit is submitted from trial counsel. Thus, defendant's contentions concerning trial counsel's efforts to adequately investigate the charges against him and explain the terms of the plea agreement to him are unavailing, as they are supported only by defendant's self-serving affidavit (seePeople v. Podeswa, 205 A.D.3d 1139, 1141–1142, 167 N.Y.S.3d 640 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1135, 172 N.Y.S.3d 857, 193 N.E.3d 522 [2022] ; People v. Vittengl, 203 A.D.3d 1390, 1393, 163 N.Y.S.3d 715 [3d Dept. 2022] ; People v. Marte–Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1397–1398, 144 N.Y.S.3d 255 [3d Dept. 2021] ). Moreover, defendant also acknowledged during the plea allocution that he understood the parameters of the plea agreement, that he had sufficient time to discuss it with counsel and that he was satisfied with counsel's representation.

  9. People v. Wilcox

    218 A.D.3d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 7 times

    "On a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, a hearing is only required if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief. Furthermore, a court may deny a vacatur motion without a hearing if it is based on the defendant's self-serving claims that are contradicted by the record or unsupported by any other evidence" (People v Marte-Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1397-1398 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord People v Podeswa, 205 A.D.3d 1139, 1140-1141 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1135 [2022]).

  10. People v. Cole

    217 A.D.3d 1185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    As to defendant's allegation that trial counsel failed to interview other fact witnesses until his wife gathered them together for this specific purpose, the fact remains that counsel did indeed meet and interview them and called them as witnesses at trial. Simply put, defendant's assertions are belied by the record (see CPL 440.30[4][d] ; People v. Johnson, 194 A.D.3d 1267, 1269, 147 N.Y.S.3d 258 [3d Dept. 2021] ; People v. Marte–Feliz, 192 A.D.3d 1397, 1399, 144 N.Y.S.3d 255 [3d Dept. 2021] ). Defendant next asserts that counsel failed to interpose a meaningful defense to the charge of assault in the second degree – which was based on a theory of recklessness – arguing that the only meaningful way to do so was through his testimony, and counsel prevented him from testifying.