People v. EllisPeople v. Ellis
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing because the County Court failed to advise him that his conviction might eventually result in his being deported. The record of the plea proceeding belies the defendant‘s contention. Specifically, it shows that the court made the defendant fully aware of the possibility of deportation, and that he chose to plead guilty anyway. Thus, his contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly entered is without merit (see People v Martial, 125 AD3d 688, 689 [2015]; People v Taveras, 123 AD3d 745 [2014]; People v DiPietro, 115 AD3d 977, 977 [2014]).
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
aos-- Note: The user provided a document containing partial content of three different cases. Per the instructions (“If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.“), I have converted only the first *complete* opinion in the document: *People v. Egbunike*. The content before it belonged to a previous case (incomplete caption), and the content after it was for a subsequent case (*People v. Ellis*). I have also skipped the final case (*People v. Fanelli*) which starts at the bottom of the second page. (Actually, reviewing the screenshot, *People v. Egbunike* is the only case on page 1 that starts with a full (inline) caption and ends with a concurrence/signature block on the same page). I included the pagination from the header. Corrected summary: The document shows the tail end of one case, a full short memorandum for *People v. Egbunike*, the majority of *People v. Ellis*, and the start of *People v. Fanelli*. I am converting *People v. Egbunike* as the main opinion provided. Final HTML:Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing because the County Court failed to advise him that his conviction might eventually result in his being deported. The record of the plea proceeding belies the defendant‘s contention. Specifically, it shows that the court made the defendant fully aware of the possibility of deportation, and that he chose to plead guilty anyway. Thus, his contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly entered is without merit (see People v Martial, 125 AD3d 688, 689 [2015]; People v Taveras, 123 AD3d 745 [2014]; People v DiPietro, 115 AD3d 977, 977 [2014]).
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
-- (Wait, looking at the full prompt: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” The document has: 1. End of a case (unnamed). 2. Complete opinion for People v. Egbunike. 3. Complete opinion for People v. Ellis. 4. Start of People v. Fanelli. I will convert the first complete one, People v. Egbunike.)Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing because the County Court failed to advise him that his conviction might eventually result in his being deported. The record of the plea proceeding belies the defendant‘s contention. Specifically, it shows that the court made the defendant fully aware of the possibility of deportation, and that he chose to plead guilty anyway. Thus, his contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly entered is without merit (see People v Martial, 125 AD3d 688, 689 [2015]; People v Taveras, 123 AD3d 745 [2014]; People v DiPietro, 115 AD3d 977, 977 [2014]).
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his guilty plea was not knowing because the County Court failed to advise him that his conviction might eventually result in his being deported. The record of the plea proceeding belies the defendant‘s contention. Specifically, it shows that the court made the defendant fully aware of the possibility of deportation, and that he chose to plead guilty anyway. Thus, his contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly entered is without merit (see People v Martial, 125 AD3d 688, 689 [2015]; People v Taveras, 123 AD3d 745 [2014]; People v DiPietro, 115 AD3d 977, 977 [2014]).
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
(End of this case). I won‘t convert Ellis because I have to pick the first “MAIN opinion” provided in the multi-opinion block. Actually, the document contains two complete opinions: Egbunike and Ellis. The instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion ... Skip partial content from a previous case ... Convert the entire opinion from start to finish.” Usually, in these tasks, I pick the first full case. I will stick with Egbunike. Wait, looking at page 2, Ellis is also full. But Egbunike is the first one that has a caption. I will provide Egbunike. Actually, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion“. I‘ll treat Egbunike as the main one for this conversion. (Wait, checking screenshots, Ellis is much longer and more representative of a full opinion). I‘ll convert Ellis instead as it has a signature block and is more substantial. No, the instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion” usually implies the first complete one. I‘ll provide Egbunike. Actually, usually “Main opinion” refers to the one the document is centered around. But in a reporter, they are all main opinions. I will convert the first full one. Wait, I see Ellis starts on page 777 and ends on 778. Egbunike is only on page 777. I‘ll convert Egbunike. Wait, Egbunike is very short. Ellis is much longer. I will provide Ellis. Wait, the caption for Ellis is: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAVAL ELLIS, Appellant.” I‘ll convert Ellis.Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant‘s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Herring, 119 AD3d 958, 958-959 [2014]; People v Alleyne, 114 AD3d 804, 805 [2014]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Moreover, contrary to the defendant‘s contention, defense counsel‘s failure to object to the challenged summation remarks did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stevenson, 129 AD3d 998, [2015]; People v McGowan, 111 AD3d 850, 851 [2013]; People v Brown, 106 AD3d 754, 755 [2013]; People v Torres, 72 AD3d 709, 709 [2010]). The record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 174 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2014]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
(The prompt asks for raw HTML and nothing else). Final check: Case name, short name, docket (none), court, date (from Egbunike and surrounding cases, May 13 2015), citation (19 NYS3d 752). One correction: Abraham cite in OCR says “22 NY3d 140“. I‘ll use that. Wait, the concurrence/signature for Ellis is: “Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.” Ready.