Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision affirms a Nassau County County Court judgment convicting the defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs with a child. The court addresses the defendant's claim that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, ruling that the issue was unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to move to withdraw the plea in the lower court. The court further finds that the record affirmatively demonstrates a valid waiver of constitutional rights and that the trial court was not required to advise him on collateral consequences.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and therefore preserved for appellate review
- Whether the County Court was required to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of his guilty plea
Holdings
- The plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the issue was unpreserved for appellate review and the judgment is affirmed.
- The County Court was not required to advise the defendant of collateral consequences of his guilty plea.
Key quotations
“The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the County Court.” (842)
“An 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.” (923)
Factual background
The defendant, Emanuel Lindarte Mujica, pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs with a child present. He was sentenced by the County Court, Nassau County. He later contended that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Procedural history
The defendant was convicted in County Court, Nassau County and sentenced after entering a guilty plea. He appealed, arguing the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.