People v Rosario
2012 NY Slip Op 02394 [93 AD3d 605]
March 29, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 25, 2012


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Carlos M. Rosario, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robin Nichinsky ofcounsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Bari L. Kamlet of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain L. Alvarado, J., at pleas; Barbara F.Newman, J., at sentencing), rendered July 17, 2009, convicting defendant of two counts ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrentterms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his challenges to the voluntariness of his guilty pleas (seePeople v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; People v Doumbia, 45 AD3d 436, 437 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 764 [2008]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternativeholding, we reject them on the merits.

Before accepting defendant's guilty pleas, the court warned him that his pleas would subjecthim to deportation proceedings and that he should "assume" he would be deported. We findnothing in the remainder of the plea colloquy that could have misled defendant into thinking thatdeportation would not be a consequence of his pleas (see Zhang v United States, 506 F3d162, 169 [2d Cir 2007]). To the extent that defendant is suggesting that Padilla vKentucky (559 US —, 130 S Ct 1473 [2010]) expands the duties of a trial court uponaccepting a guilty plea from a noncitizen, we reject that argument (see People v Diaz, 92 AD3d 413[2012]).

Defendant's argument that his trial counsel misadvised him as to the deportationconsequences of a conviction is unavailing, because defendant has not made the necessaryshowing of prejudice (see People vMcDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 115 [2003]). Finally, defendant's responses to the court'squestions at the plea proceeding demonstrate that he was able to speak and understand Englishand was not in need of an interpreter (see People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272 [1970]).

In view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to reach any other issues.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.