People v. ManePeople v. Mane
Early in the morning of April 4, 2004, defendant, without permission, entered four different apartments occupied by female college students, some of whom awoke to find him in their bedrooms. In one instance, defendant attempted to force one of the students to perform a sexual act. Defendant was subsequently convicted after a jury trial of eight of the nine counts in the indictment, and that judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal (36 AD3d 1079 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 987 [2007]). While the direct appeal of defendant‘s judgment of conviction was pending before this Court, defendant moved pursuant to
Defendant‘s claim that he did not give a knowing and intelligent waiver of immunity because of his inability to understand the English language could have been raised in his direct appeal and, moreover, his failure to move to dismiss the indictment prior to trial or to set aside the verdict prior to sentencing precludes a review of this issue by this Court (see People v Haggins, 148 AD2d 987 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 664 [1989]; People v Hodge, 141 AD2d 843 [1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 1046 [1988]).
Nor is reversal in the interest of justice warranted here because defendant knowingly and intelligently waived immunity prior to giving testimony before the grand jury. Not only were his counsel and an interpreter present when the waiver of immunity was first explained to defendant, but defendant, with the aid of the interpreter, acknowledged—in the presence of counsel as well as the foreperson of the grand jury—that he had reviewed the waiver with his counsel, understood its contents
Moreover, the record reveals that defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel and obtained meaningful representation throughout this proceeding (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714-715 [1998]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.