People v. Ramroop

2025 NY Slip Op 01647 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · March 19, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 72140/22

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's conviction for assault in the second degree after denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rejecting the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration consequences, as the record showed he was properly advised by the court and could not demonstrate prejudice. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Barros, J.P.; Ford, J.; Wan, J.; Love, J.J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
March 19, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 72140/22
Procedural posture
Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County convicting the defendant of assault in the second degree and denying his motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Ravindha Ramroop v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureplea bargainingimmigrationpost-conviction relief

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel
  2. Whether the defendant demonstrated prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to advise on immigration consequences

Holdings

  1. The appellate court affirmed that the trial court properly denied the motion; no abuse of discretion was found.
  2. The defendant failed to show prejudice; therefore the motion to withdraw the plea was properly denied.

Key quotations

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion. (1081)
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Federal Constitution, 'the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness' and 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense'. (1248)

Factual background

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree, received a five‑year determinate prison term followed by five years of post‑release supervision, and subsequently moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing and imposed the sentence.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Queens County sentenced the defendant to five years imprisonment and five years post‑release supervision after a guilty plea. The defendant moved to withdraw the plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration consequences; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The defendant appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…