From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 7, 2015
127 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

1541/11 -1542/11, 14727B, 3209/11, 14727A, 14727

04-07-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ceferino PEREZ, Defendant–Appellant.

Jeremy Gutman, New York, for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.


Jeremy Gutman, New York, for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered February 29, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating as a major trafficker and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed. Judgments, same court and Justice, rendered March 13, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, he did not preserve his claim that the court coerced his plea to operating as a major trafficker and conspiracy (see People v. Ali, 96 N.Y.2d 840, 729 N.Y.S.2d 434, 754 N.E.2d 193 [2001] ), and this claim does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 182, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280, 3 N.E.3d 617 [2013] ). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and was made in exchange for a favorable sentence. The court's statement that defendant “[could] not expect” concurrent sentences if he were convicted after trial was accurate under the circumstances of the case and was not coercive.

The People concede that the March 13, 2012 judgments should be reversed because the court did not advise defendant that his sentences would include postrelease supervision (see People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 [2005] ).

We have considered all other claims raised and find them to be unavailing.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 7, 2015
127 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ceferino Perez…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 7, 2015

Citations

127 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
4 N.Y.S.3d 515
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2909

Citing Cases

People v. Perez

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 127 AD3d 436 (NY)…

People v. Hayes

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's oral motion to withdraw his plea.…