People v Innocente (William)

[*1] People v Innocente (William) 2009 NY Slip Op 52456(U) [25 Misc 3d 141(A)] Decided on December 2, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 2, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
2007-997 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

William Innocente, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Glenn A. Murphy, J.), rendered March 29, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) and received a sentence of a conditional discharge. At defendant's plea allocution, the District Court made no mention of any possible immigration consequences of defendant's plea. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that this court should adopt a rule requiring that, before a trial court accepts a defendant's guilty plea to a misdemeanor offense, the court must advise the defendant of the possible deportation consequences of his conviction.

Contrary to defendant's contention, this court is not free to fashion such a rule. In People v Ford (86 NY2d 397 [1995]), the Court of Appeals concluded that deportation is a collateral consequence of a conviction and that, therefore, a court has no duty to warn defendants of possible deportation consequences before entering a guilty plea (see also People v Sanchez-Martinez, 35 AD3d 632 [2006]; People v Villanueva, 255 AD2d 406 [1998]). Therefore, as defendant raises no other objection to his plea and no other issue on appeal, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: December 02, 2009