Opinion
2011-12-22
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Manuel Mauricio RAMIREZ, Appellant.
Cheryl L. Sovern, Clifton Park, for appellant. Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), for respondent.
Cheryl L. Sovern, Clifton Park, for appellant. Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., PETERS, SPAIN, ROSE and KAVANAGH, JJ.
MERCURE, Acting P.J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered June 23, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with one count of aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree. No promises as to sentencing were made under the terms of the plea agreement, and County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 23 years to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent is unpreserved for our review due to his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Vasquez, 61 A.D.3d 1109, 1111, 876 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2009]; People v. Espinoza–Aguilar, 24 A.D.3d 892, 892–893, 806 N.Y.S.2d 271 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 812, 812 N.Y.S.2d 452, 845 N.E.2d 1283 [2006] ). Moreover, inasmuch as his plea colloquy does not cast doubt upon his guilt or call the voluntariness of the plea into question, this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation rule ( see People v. McNair, 13 N.Y.3d 821, 822, 892 N.Y.S.2d 822, 920 N.E.2d 929 [2009] ). The record establishes, contrary to defendant's contention, that he was properly advised of the immigration consequences attendant to his plea and, therefore, he received the effective assistance of counsel ( see Padilla v. Kentucky, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1482–1483, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 [2010]; Zhang v. United States, 506 F.3d 162, 169 [2d Cir.2007]; People v. Doumbia, 45 A.D.3d 436, 437, 844 N.Y.S.2d 874 [2007], lvs. denied 10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261 [2008] ).
Defendant also challenges the accuracy of the information contained in the presentence investigation report, but he declined County Court's invitation to supplement that report at sentencing and, thus, cannot now be heard to complain of its alleged inadequacies ( see People v. Harrington, 3 A.D.3d 737, 739, 770 N.Y.S.2d 792 [2004]; People v. Smallwood, 212 A.D.2d 449, 622 N.Y.S.2d 939 [1995], lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 741, 631 N.Y.S.2d 621, 655 N.E.2d 718 [1995] ). Finally, we reject defendant's claim that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.