People v Pellegrino (Stephen)

[*1] People v Pellegrino 2014 NY Slip Op 50896(U) Decided on June 9, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 9, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Hunter, Jr., J.
570445/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Stephen Pellegrino, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered February 24, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of promoting prostitution in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered February 24, 2011, affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find the record sufficient to establish defendant's understanding and waiver of his Boykin rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395

US 238 [1969]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 366 [2013]),
and of his entry of an otherwise knowing and voluntary
guilty plea. Defendant was arrested and charged with promoting prostitution in the third degree (Penal Law § 230.25[1]), a class D felony punishable by a prison sentence of 1 to 3 years. Approximately one week after his arrest defendant, with counsel at his side, pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree promoting prostitution (Penal Law § 230.20) in return for a negotiated sentence of a $250 fine, which he paid. The plea minutes reflect that defendant personally confirmed that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and because he was in fact guilty of the reduced charge. Further, defense counsel, in announcing defendant's willingness to accept the People's favorable plea offer, indicated that he (counsel) had "conferred on this matter with [defendant] over the past two days." Thus, the record showed that defendant "clearly understood the nature of the charges to which he was pleading and willingly entered his plea to obtain the benefit of the bargain he had struck" (People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]), and had "ample opportunity to review his options in consultation with counsel" (People v Perez, 116 AD3d 511, ___ [2014]; see People v Jackson, 114 AD3d 807 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 09, 2014