| People v Pellegrino |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08618 [26 NY3d 1063] |
| November 24, 2015 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, February 3, 2016 |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen Pellegrino, Appellant. |
Decided November 24, 2015
People v Pellegrino, 43 Misc 3d 145(A), 2014 NY Slip Op 50896(U), affirmed.
The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Yuval Simchi-Levi and Alan Gadlin of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.
A guilty plea is not invalid solely because the trial court failed to recite a [*2]defendant's constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]; see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015] [decided herewith]). The record as a whole, however, must affirmatively demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]).{**26 NY3d at 1064}
The Appellate Term correctly concluded that the record in this case affirmatively shows a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. Although he was initially charged with a felony, defendant pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 230.20), a class A misdemeanor, in exchange for a $250 fine. He discussed the plea with his attorney for two days and personally confirmed that he was pleading guilty of his own free will because he was, in fact, guilty of the charge. The court ensured that defendant was aware of any potential immigration consequences and also that the conviction would add to his criminal record. We are satisfied that these facts establish a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver.
Chief Judge Lippman (dissenting).
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in People v Conceicao (26 NY3d 375 [2015] [decided herewith]).
Judges Pigott, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur; Chief Judge Lippman dissents in an opinion in which Judge Rivera concurs.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.