| People v Ramirez |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09217 [90 AD3d 1335] |
| December 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ManuelMauricio Ramirez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, A.P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka,J.), rendered June 23, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofaggravated sexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, waived indictment and pleaded guilty to asuperior court information charging him with one count of aggravated sexual abuse in the firstdegree. No promises as to sentencing were made under the terms of the plea agreement, andCounty Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 23 years to be followed by 20 years ofpostrelease supervision. He now appeals and we affirm.
Defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent isunpreserved for our review due to his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction (see People vVasquez, 61 AD3d 1109, 1111 [2009]; People v Espinoza-Aguilar, 24 AD3d 892, 892-893 [2005], lvdenied 6 NY3d 812 [2006]). Moreover, inasmuch as his plea colloquy does not cast doubtupon his guilt or call the voluntariness of the plea into question, this case does not fall within thenarrow exception to the preservation rule (see People v McNair, 13 NY3d 821, 822 [2009]). The recordestablishes, contrary to defendant's contention, that he was properly advised of the immigrationconsequences attendant to his plea and, [*2]therefore, he receivedthe effective assistance of counsel (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US—, —, 130 S Ct 1473, 1482-1483 [2010]; Zhang v U.S., 506F3d 162, 169 [2d Cir 2007]; People vDoumbia, 45 AD3d 436, 437 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]).
Defendant also challenges the accuracy of the information contained in the presentenceinvestigation report, but he declined County Court's invitation to supplement that report atsentencing and, thus, cannot now be heard to complain of its alleged inadequacies (see People v Harrington, 3 AD3d737, 739 [2004]; People v Smallwood, 212 AD2d 449 [1995], lv denied 86NY2d 741 [1995]). Finally, we reject defendant's claim that the sentence imposed was harsh orexcessive.
Peters, Spain, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.