| People v Quinones |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08011 [112 AD3d 411] |
| December 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jaime Quinones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Naomi C. Reed of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., on suppressionmotion; Richard Carruthers, J., at plea, sentencing and resentencing), rendered July 30,2008, as amended February 29, 2012, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in thefirst degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied that portion of appellant's suppression motion that soughta hearing under Dunaway v New York (442 US 200 [1979]) concerning thelegality of the arrest that resulted in defendant's confession. The information provided todefendant explained how he came to be arrested for a robbery. In his suppression motion,defendant made only a vague challenge to the stated factual predicate for his arrest, andhe did not assert any basis for suppression, or raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing(see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]). To the extent that, onappeal, defendant asserts a ground for suppression, that is an issue that should have beenraised in his moving papers.
In adjudicating defendant a persistent violent felony offender, the court properlyrelied upon an otherwise qualifying 1991 conviction for which no plea or sentencingminutes are available. Defendant failed to overcome the presumption of regularityregarding his prior conviction, or provide any reason to believe that he would have beenable to meet his burden of establishing that the prior conviction had beenunconstitutionally obtained (see CPL 400.21 [7] [b]). "The presumption ofregularity is particularly significant in guilty plea cases, because plea situations areordinarily marked by the absence of controverted issues, and in the plea situation thedefendant tacitly indicates that no further judicial inquiry is required" (People v Hofler, 2 AD3d176, 176 [1st Dept 2003] [internal quotation marks and [*2]citations omitted], affd 4 NY3d 41 [2004]). Thereis no merit to defendant's constitutional claims, including his assertion that governmentalfault contributed to the unavailability of the minutes. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe,DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.