A failure to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights during a plea colloquy does not automatically require dismissal of the charges.
A defendant challenges his conviction for unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, arguing that the trial court failed to inform him of his constitutional rights during his plea colloquy. The court considers whether the defendant's rights were violated despite the lack of preservation. Although the record is devoid of evidence that the defendant intentionally relinquished his rights, the court determines that dismissal is not the appropriate remedy. Because the defendant has completed his sentence and does not seek a vacatur of his plea for remand, the court affirms the judgment.
At page 450 Affirming judgment of conviction without review4 citing cases
- People v. Black (Dawine), 2025 NY Slip Op 51946(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished Since we do not find dismissal to be an appropriate remedy, we affirm ( see People v Conceicao , 26 NY3d 375, 385 n [2015]; People v Teron , 139 AD3d 450, 450 [2016]).
- People v. Aleman (Conrado), 85 Misc. 3d 139(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on that basis as well ( see People v Conceicao , 26 NY3d 375, 385 n [2015]; People v Teron , 139 AD3d 450, 450 [2016]).
- People v. Daniels (Deshawn), 85 Misc. 3d 133(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished We, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction without reviewing defendant's challenge, as the ultimate outcome of the appeal would, in either event, be an affirmance ( see People v Teron , 139 AD3d 450, 450 [2016]).
- People v. Acosta, 210 N.Y.S.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).publishedWe do not find dismissal to be appropriate and thus, affirm the conviction ( see People v Boynton , 217 AD3d 583 , 584 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 950 [2023]; People v Teron , 139 AD3d 450, 450 [1st Dept 2016]).
Other citing cases
- People v. Vargas (Jesenia), No. 2017 NYSlipOp 50803(U) (N.Y. App. Term. June 16, 2017).published
- People v. Rojas (Jeraldhy), 85 Misc. 3d 143(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished
- People v. Parker (Gordon), 85 Misc. 3d 142(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished
- People v. Young (Jamel), 2025 NY Slip Op 50157(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished
- People v. Jiles (Darryl), 84 Misc. 3d 137(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished
v.
Jay Jay Teron, Appellant
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George R. Villegas, J., at plea and original sentencing), rendered January 17, 2012, as amended April 12, 2012 (John S. Moore, J., at resentencing), convicting defendant of unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.
Initially, we need not address the issue of whether defendant’s challenge to his plea has been preserved, as we consider this claim pursuant to our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Defendant was not informed by the court of any of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]). While “the failure to recite the Boykin rights does not automatically invalidate an otherwise voluntary and intelligent plea . . . the record as a whole [must] affirmatively show[ ] that the defendant intentionally relinquished those rights” in order for the plea to be validly entered (People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 379 [2015]). In this case, since the record is devoid of any indicia that would meet this standard, we find that defendant’s Boykin rights were violated.
Nevertheless, in cases where “the record fails to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver,” dismissal may not be “the appropriate corrective action” (id. at 379 and n; see also People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 918 [1976]). The proper remedy should be either an affirmance of the conviction or a vacatur of the plea and remand for further proceedings.
Defendant has completed his sentence of time served and a fine but has not set forth sufficient grounds to dismiss the accusatory instrument. Additionally, defendant affirmatively states that he does not seek vacatur of his plea and a remand to the trial court.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.