People v Maldonado
2016 NY Slip Op 05188 [140 AD3d 1530]
June 30, 2016
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 3, 2016


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJonathan Maldonado, Appellant.

Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), forrespondent.

Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), renderedMay 2, 2014 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof burglary in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in thesecond degree and waived his right to appeal both orally and in writing. In accordancewith the plea agreement, he was sentenced to six years in prison, to be followed by threeyears of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, although defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude hischallenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, we find that this challenge is notpreserved for our review as the record fails to disclose that defendant made anappropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his plea (see People v Buck, 136 AD3d1117, 1118 [2016]; Peoplev Garry, 133 AD3d 1039, 1039 [2015]). Moreover, the exception to thepreservation rule does not apply as defendant did not make any statements during theplea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt (see People v Sawyer, 135 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2016], lvdenied 27 NY3d 1006 [2016]; People v Garry, 133 AD3d at 1040).Defendant further asserts that the interpreter who was present to assist him during theplea proceedings was not properly sworn and that he was confused by the interpretation,which affected the voluntariness of his plea. This claim too has not been preserved forour review due to defendant's failure to make an appropriate postallocution motion(see People v Vasquez, 61 [*2]AD3d 1109, 1111[2009]; People v Tofaj, 14AD3d 734 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 795 [2005]). Accordingly, thejudgment must be affirmed.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.


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.