People v Linares
2014 NY Slip Op 02455 [116 AD3d 792]
April 9, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 28, 2014


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Henry Linares, Appellant.

[*1]Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu and RichardLongworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Colangelo, J.), rendered January 20, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court improperly delegated its authority tothe prosecutor to conduct the plea proceeding, during which the prosecutor allegedlymisinformed him of the maximum sentence he faced for a conviction of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree, thereby rendering his pleainvoluntary. However, the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate reviewbecause he did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise these issues before theCounty Court (see People vFolger, 110 AD3d 736 [2013]). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty wasentered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). The plea proceeding was conducted in the County Court'spresence and under its supervision, and was not an abrogation of the court'sresponsibility (see People vAdio, 111 AD3d 757, 758 [2013]; People v Bethune, 91 AD3d 966 [2012]; People vSmith, 306 AD2d 210, 211 [2003]; People v Montanez, 287 AD2d 407, 408[2001]; People v Sanchez, 284 AD2d 137 [2001]; People v Anthony,188 AD2d 477 [1992]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutorcorrectly advised him of the maximum sentence he could receive on a conviction ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony (seePenal Law §§ 220.16, 70.70 [2] [a] [i]).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman andCohen, JJ., concur.


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.