People v. Peralta

<div>People v Peralta - 2026 NY Slip Op 01993

<div> skip to main content </div>

<div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div>

<div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div>

<nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>People v Peralta</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 01993</p> <p>April 1, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Second Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>The People of the State of New York, respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Julio Peralta, appellant. (S.C.I. Nos. 1423/21, 71211/22)</p> </div> <p>Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department</p> <p>Decided on April 1, 2026</p> <p>2023-05219, 2023-05222</p> <p>Mark C. Dillon, J.P.</p> <p>William G. Ford</p> <p>Helen Voutsinas</p> <p>James P. Mccormack, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Jan Murphy, Huntington, NY, for appellant.</p> <p>Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>DECISION &amp; ORDER</p> <p>Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Terence P. Murphy, J.), both rendered June 23, 2022, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under Superior Court Information No. 1423/21 and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Superior Court Information No. 71211/22, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.</p> <p>ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.</p> <p>Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waivers of his right to appeal, in both circumstances, were invalid. The Supreme Court's terse oral colloquies failed to establish that the defendant understood the nature of the rights he was waiving and the rights he retained (<i>see</i> <i>e.g.</i> <i>People v Taj W.</i>, 235 AD3d 1016) and were not supplemented by written waiver forms, which might have cured the deficiencies in the court's colloquies (<i>People v Vilmont</i>, 216 AD3d 1113).</p> <p>The defendant's contention concerning his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not move to vacate his plea or otherwise raise this issue before the Supreme Court (<i>see</i> CPL 470.05[2]; <i>People v Peralta</i>, 171 AD3d 948, 948; <i>People v Kovalsky</i>, 166 AD3d 900, 901; <i>People v Ramos</i>, 164 AD3d 922, 922). Moreover, "the 'rare case' exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant's allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea" (<i>People v Ramos</i>, 164 AD3d at 922-923, quoting <i>People v Lopez</i>, 71 NY2d 662, 666). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (<i>see</i> <i>People v Ospina</i>, 175 AD3d 513).</p> <p>The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in sentencing him to an enhanced sentence on his plea to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree following his arrest, prior to sentencing, for, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree is unpreserved for appellate review <span>[*2]</span>(<i>see People v Trent</i>, 243 AD3d 687, 687; <i>People v Perkins</i>, 169 AD3d 936, 937) and, in any event, without merit. The defendant was advised of the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon his failure to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement (<i>People v Perkins</i>, 169 AD3d at 937).</p> <p>Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the sentences imposed were not excessive (<i>see People v Suitte</i>, 90 AD2d 80).</p> <p>DILLON, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.</p> <p>ENTER:</p> <p>Darrell M. Joseph</p> <p>Clerk of the Court</p> </div>

<div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div>

</div>