From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1995
212 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record reflects that the Supreme Court expressly warned the defendant that if he did not appear for sentencing it would not be bound by its promise to impose a sentence of only one to three years imprisonment. Although the court's warning was somewhat elliptical, the defendant's understanding of it can readily be inferred from the record. Thus, the court was not required to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea before imposing an enhanced sentence (see, e.g., People v. Thorpe, 189 A.D.2d 903; People v. McCoy, 182 A.D.2d 713; People v. McNeill, 164 A.D.2d 951; cf., People v. Scrivens, 175 A.D.2d 671; People v. White, 144 A.D.2d 711; People v. Sumner, 137 A.D.2d 891).

Although the transcript of the plea proceeding does not reflect the presence of a Spanish interpreter, the court's calendar sheet has an annotation: "Spanish Int. Pres." In addition, the defendant's counsel announced on the record that he had discussed the plea with his client and his client's family through an interpreter, and the defendant has not complained that his counsel was ineffective. The transcript of the plea proceeding reflects that the defendant answered all of the questions that were addressed to him without confusion or hesitation, and at no point did he ask for clarification or for an interpreter (People v. Perez, 198 A.D.2d 446). The defendant described his participation in the crime in terms that evidenced his full understanding of the plea agreement. The court, therefore, properly denied the defendant's application to vacate his plea without holding a hearing. The record contains nothing to suggest that the defendant did not comprehend the proceedings or that his plea was anything but knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, e.g., People v. Williams, 183 A.D.2d 866; People v. Pantojas, 182 A.D.2d 782; People v. Ochoa, 179 A.D.2d 689; People v. Doceti, 175 A.D.2d 256; People v. Bangert, 107 A.D.2d 752; People v. Adams, 65 A.D.2d 515). Lawrence, J.P., Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1995
212 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Velez

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN VELEZ, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 14, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 576

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's challenge to his enhanced sentence since he failed…

People v. Gonzalez

Were we to review this claim, we would find that the plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently…