People v Coleman
2016 NY Slip Op 03008 [138 AD3d 1014]
April 20, 2016
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 1, 2016


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Jahquez D. Coleman, Appellant.

Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Forman, J.), rendered March 10, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the time of sentencing, the defendant was presented with a stipulation and arelease for the forfeiture, to the District Attorney, of the sum of $6,134, two digitalscales, and one cellular phone, all considered proceeds of his crime (see CPLR1311 [1]). After conferring with counsel, the defendant executed the stipulation and therelease, agreeing to forfeit the cash, scales, and phone instead of subjecting himself to acivil lawsuit.

The defendant contends that the imposition of a civil forfeiture was a directconsequence of his plea of guilty of which he was not advised at the time of the plea, andas a result, his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.The defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move tovacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue atsentencing (see People vBurgos, 129 AD3d 627, 628 [2015]; People v Detres-Perez, 127 AD3d 535 [2015]; People v McNair, 79 AD3d908, 909 [2010]). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, theimposition of a civil forfeiture, to which he expressly agreed after conferring withcounsel, was a collateral, not a direct, consequence of his plea of guilty (seeCPLR 1311 [1]; People v McNair, 79 AD3d at 909; Holtzman v Roman,141 AD2d 601 [1988]; People v Mitchell, 121 AD2d 403 [1986]; see alsoUnited States v United States Currency in the Amount of $228,536.00, 895 F2d 908,916 [2d Cir 1990]). Accordingly, the defendant's plea was not rendered unknowing,involuntary, or unintelligent by the failure to advise him of a civil forfeiture at the time ofthe plea.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and intelligentbecause he was not advised that his right to claim a speedy trial violation under CPL30.30 would be forfeited upon his plea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review,since he did not move to vacate his plea prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwiseraise the issue in the County Court (see People v Sirico, 135 AD3d 19, 22 [2015]; People v Isaiah S., 130 AD3d1081 [2015]; People v Bennett, 122 [*2]AD3d 871, 872 [2014]; People v Bunn, 79 AD3d 1143 [2010]). In any event, thecontention is without merit. There is no uniform mandatory catechism for accepting aplea of guilty (see People vTyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; People vIsaiah S., 130 AD3d at 1082; People v Bennett, 122 AD3d at 872). A plea ofguilty "will not be invalidated 'solely because the Trial Judge failed to specificallyenumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or hera list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea' " (People vTyrell, 22 NY3d at 365, quoting People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]).Here, before the court accepted the defendant's plea of guilty, it advised the defendant ofnumerous federal constitutional rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty (seePeople v Sirico, 135 AD3d at 22; People v Isaiah S., 130 AD3d at 1082; cf. People v Moore, 24 NY3d1030, 1031 [2014]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 366). The recordaffirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of theseconstitutional rights, and the entry of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty(see People v Harris, 61 NY2d at 19-20).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Sgroi, 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.