People v Jimenez
2012 NY Slip Op 04432 [96 AD3d 1109]
June 7, 2012
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Jimenez,Also Known as Papito, Appellant.

[*1]Grasso, Rodriguez & Grasso, Schenectady (Christopher R. Burke of counsel), forappellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), forrespondent.

Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Coccoma,J.), rendered May 24, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of a 22-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, waived his right to appeal and thereafterwas sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to seven years in prisonfollowed by four years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending only thathe was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

We affirm. To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim impactsupon the voluntariness of his plea, it survives his otherwise valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Peterkin, 77 AD3d1017, 1017 [2010]; People vSingh, 73 AD3d 1384, 1385 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 809 [2010]). However,as the record before us does not reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate thejudgment of conviction, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not preserved for ourreview (see People v MacDonald,77 AD3d 989, 990 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 954 [2010]; People v Rivera, 78 AD3d 1423,1424 [2010]). In any event, defendant's present assertion that he did not understand the nature ofthe [*2]proceedings due to his limited understanding of theEnglish language is belied by the record (see People v Feliz, 51 AD3d 1278, 1279 [2008]; People v Tofaj, 14 AD3d 734, 734[2005]; People v Pagan, 284 AD2d 651, 652 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922[2001]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


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.