| People v Miranda |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08041 [67 AD3d 709] |
| November 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Eduardo Miranda, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen ofcounsel; Isaac Silverstein on the brief), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County(DiMango, J.), both rendered May 18, 2006, convicting him of (1) attempted robbery in the firstdegree under indictment No. 1495/05, and (2) robbery in the second degree under indictment No.8952/05, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
As correctly conceded by the People, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appealwas not valid because it was based on an incorrect statement of the law (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d548, 549 [2004]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, however, defense counsel's statement that thedefendant faced a possible sentence of 75 years if convicted on all counts did not constitute athreat or coercion but, rather, was a proper explanation of the possible maximum sentence if thedefendant were convicted (see People vMann, 32 AD3d 865 [2006]; People v Pagan, 297 AD2d 582 [2002]; Peoplev Samuel, 208 AD2d 776 [1994]). Further, the defendant's claim of coercion is belied by hisresponses at the plea allocutions that no one had threatened, coerced, or forced him to pleadguilty (see People v McGhee, 62AD3d 1027 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 927 [2009]; People v Perez, 51 AD3d 1043[2008]; People v Beasley, 50 AD3d697 [2008]; People v Gedin, 46AD3d 701 [2007]; People vGutierrez, 35 AD3d 883 [2006]).
The defendant's conclusory allegation that he was confused at the time of the pleas is alsobelied by the record. The defendant stated that he understood the nature of the pleas, the rightshe was waiving, and the crimes to which he was pleading guilty. The defendant's responses werelucid and appropriate, and he expressly stated that he understood all of the court's questions(see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]; People v First, 62 AD3d 1043 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d915 [2009]; People v Wager, 34AD3d 505 [2006]; People vMatthews, 21 AD3d 499 [2005]; People v Hansen, 269 AD2d 467 [2000];People v Polimeda, 198 AD2d 242 [1993]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention that the courtshould have sua sponte ordered the New York City Department of Probation to conduct a mentalevaluation of him prior to sentencing, pursuant to CPL 390.30 (2), is without merit. There is nosupport in the record that the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings at thetime of the plea allocutions (see People v Hansen, 269 AD2d 467 [2000]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying,without an evidentiary hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (seeCPL 220.60 [3]). Santucci, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.