| People v Manzanales |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01619 [170 AD3d 752] |
| March 6, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Modesto Manzanales, Appellant. |
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel; Matthew C.Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (David P.Sullivan, J.), rendered March 16, 2017, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.Since this issue would survive a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg,74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People vCamarda, 138 AD3d 884, 885 [2016]; People v Ferguson, 113 AD3d 874, 874 [2014]), we do notconsider the validity of the defendant's purported appeal waiver. The defendant's contentionconcerning the validity of the plea of guilty is, nonetheless, without merit. The Supreme Courtexpressly advised the defendant of the rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty, and therecord affirmatively demonstrates the defendant's understanding and waiver of those rights(see People v Camarda, 138 AD3d at 885).
Although the record reflects that the defendant had a history of mental impairment, hisresponses during the plea proceeding were coherent and appropriate, and there is no basis in therecord to support a conclusion that, at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked anunderstanding of the nature or the consequences of his plea of guilty (see People v DeBenedetto, 120 AD3d1428, 1429 [2014]; People vBrooks, 89 AD3d 747, 747-748 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449 [2011]). To the extent that thedefendant relies on events subsequent to the judgment of conviction and a subsequentpsychological evaluation to support his argument on appeal, that material is dehors the recordand may not be considered on a direct appeal from the judgment (see People v Stevens, 162 AD3d1077, 1078 [2018]; People vKing, 161 AD3d 772, 775 [2018]; People v Bethea, 159 AD3d 710, 713 [2018]; People v Geritano, 158 AD3d 724,725 [2018]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record also reflects that, before accepting thedefendant's plea, the Supreme Court properly advised the defendant that a plea of guilty couldlead to deportation or the denial of naturalization (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 176 [2013]), and confirmed thatthe defendant had had sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel and was satisfied withcounsel's representation (cf. People vMay, 138 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2016]). Austin, J.P., Roman, Miller and BrathwaiteNelson, JJ., concur.