Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

People v. Romero

People v. Romero
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 15, 2011
82 A.D.3d 1013; 918 N.Y.2d 730
People v. Romero

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The record demonstrates that the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea was not rendered invalid by the County Court’s failure to advise him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea (see CPL 220.50 [7]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]; People v Sanchez-Martinez, 35 AD3d 632, 633 [2006]; cf. Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US —, 130 S Ct 1473 [2010]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel rests mainly on matter dehors the record, which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Griffith, 78 AD3d 1194, 1196 [2010]; People v Wiedmer, 71 AD3d 1067 [2010]; People v Alexander, 62 AD3d 719, 720 [2009]). To the extent this contention is reviewable on the record before us, we find that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People v Brooks, 36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; People v Grimes, 35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]). Covello, J.E, Belen, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.