Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Edgar Feliciano A/K/A Bernardo Rodriguez

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 29, 2011

PEOPLE RESPONDENT,
v.
EDGAR FELICIANO A/K/A BERNARDO RODRIGUEZ,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Per curiam.

People v Feliciano (Edgar)

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 29, 2011

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ

Defendant appeals from that portion of an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), dated October 7, 2009, which, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to the original determination of an order of the same Court (Eileen Koretz, J.), dated May 17, 2007, which had denied his motion, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate a judgment of the same Court (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered October 28, 1988, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.

Order (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), dated October 7, 2009, insofar as appealed, affirmed.

Contrary to defendant's contentions, he was afforded effective assistance of counsel at his plea hearing, where his counsel's representation met the requisite objective standard of reasonableness (see Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 58 [1985]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 [1984]; People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 113 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]). With the plea bargaining and advice of counsel, defendant, who was facing felony charges, received an advantageous plea to a misdemeanor and the promised conditional discharge sentence. As such, nothing in the record casts doubt upon the meaningful representation and apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

Since defendant's guilty plea was neither improvident nor baseless, it should be sustained (see People v Johnson, 73 AD3d 951 [2010]; People v Guerrero, 307 AD2d 935, 936 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 572 [2003]; People v Daley, 23 Misc 3d 145[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51168[U] [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]).Nor do we find merit in defendant's argument as to the applicability of Padilla v Kentucky (___US___, 130 S Ct 1473, 1482 [2010]) to his circumstances. Based upon the professional norms prevailing when defendant pled guilty in 1988, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d at 404-405; People v Perez, 29 Misc 3d 1228[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52069[U] [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date:March 29, 2011

20110329

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.