| People v Suazo |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00030 [146 AD3d 423] |
| January 3, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Saylor Suazo, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark Zeno, of counsel),for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Catherine M. Reno of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), renderedMarch 27, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in thethird degree, attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, menacingin the third degree and attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of 60 days, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant argues that he was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial, even though hewas only being tried for class B misdemeanors carrying maximum sentences of 90 days,because as a noncitizen he would be allegedly be deportable if convicted of any domesticviolence crime. However, "a defendant's right to a jury trial attaches only to seriousoffenses, not to petty crimes, the determining factor being length of exposure toincarceration" (People vUrbaez, 10 NY3d 773, 774 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]; see also People v Foy, 88 NY2d 742, 745 [1996]). "An offense carryinga maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed petty, unless the legislature hasauthorized additional statutory penalties so severe as to indicate that the legislatureconsidered the offense serious" (Lewis v United States, 518 US 322, 326 [1996]).Despite the gravity of the impact of deportation on a convicted defendant (see Padillav Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010]), deportation consequences are still collateral (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d168, 191-192 [2013]), and do not render an otherwise petty offense "serious" forjury trial purposes.
Furthermore, under defendant's approach, in order to decide whether to grant a jurytrial to a noncitizen charged with B misdemeanors, the court would need to analyze theimmigration consequences of a particular conviction on the particular defendant, and wefind this to be highly impracticable. We note that the immigration impact of thisdefendant's conviction is unclear. He is already deportable as an undocumented alien,and only claims that the conviction would block any hypothetical effort to legalize hisstatus.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibilitydeterminations. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Gische, Kahn and Gesmer,JJ.