People v Kaleda (Raman)

[*1] People v Kaleda (Raman) 2008 NY Slip Op 51894(U) [21 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on September 16, 2008 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 16, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-1301 K CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Raman Kaleda, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Betty Williams, J.), rendered July 2, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

By pleading guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), defendant forfeited any claim of error with respect to the failure of the court to inform him of his rights as mandated by CPL 170.10 (4) (see generally People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 574 [2004]). Moreover, defense counsel validly waived, on defendant's behalf, the right to be prosecuted by information (cf. People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429 [1974]).

Defendant argues that the waiver of a factual allocution was improper. Under the particular circumstances presented herein, we reject the People's contention that defendant failed to preserve this claim (see generally People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 546 [2007]). In any event, even if the claim is not preserved, we consider it appropriate, under the circumstances, to reach it in the interest of justice. We find, however, that the waiver was not improper (see People v Pratcher, 50 AD3d 1063 [2008]; see also People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 118 [2003]). Moreover, we disagree with defendant's contention that defense counsel's waiver of a factual allocution rendered her representation ineffective, under either the Federal Constitution (see generally Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 58-59 [1985]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 113-114 [2003]) or the New York State Constitution (see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

Finally, defendant's claim that his attorney did not inform him of the immigration [*2]consequences of his plea is not properly before the court, since the underlying facts are dehors the record (see People v Brisman, 51 AD3d 685 [2008]). In any event, we note that a failure to advise defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea would not have rendered defense counsel's representation ineffective under either the Federal standard (see People v McDonald, 1 NY3d at 114) or the New York State standard (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d at 404; People v Argueta, 46 AD3d 46, 51 [2007]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 16, 2008