People v Kuramtsov

People v Kuramtsov 2012 NY Slip Op 02780 Decided on April 12, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 12, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7370 6073/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Sergei Kuramtsov, etc., Defendant-Appellant.




Stephen C. Cooper, New York, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila L.
Bautista of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered January 21, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 60 days, concurrent with 5 years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant asserts that his plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Although defendant raised these claims in an unsuccessful CPL 440.10 motion, his motion for leave to appeal to this Court was denied. Therefore our review of defendant's present claims is limited to the plea and sentencing record (see People v Stevens, 88 AD3d 494 [2011]). The record, to the extent it permits review, establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that
it was made with effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]).

Defendant's assertion that the charge to which he pleaded guilty was confusing, and that he never intended to plead guilty to a felony, is belied by the plea allocution. The court and the clerk clearly informed defendant of the charge, and that it was a felony. The record does not indicate any discussion of a misdemeanor plea.

To the extent defendant is arguing that his attorney provided inadequate advice regarding [*2]the deportation consequences of a plea to a felony, that claim is unsupported by anything in the record. Moreover, the record does not even indicate whether or not defendant is a United States citizen.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 12, 2012

CLERK