requisite impact defense in New York

2024The defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's alleged misstatement had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standards ( see People v Facey , 180 AD3d 927, 929 ; People v Rodriguez , 150 AD3d 1029, 1030-1031 ; People v Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721, 722 ).

2019Here, defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's alleged deficient performance had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standard since he was subsequently made aware, prior to entering his guilty plea, by both the court and the prosecutor, as well as through the conviction waiver of rights form which he had executed, that he could be deported ( see People v Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721 [2014] [finding that the County Court had properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his

2022Here, defendant failed to establish that his attorney's alleged failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standard since, prior to entering his guilty plea, he was made indisputably aware by the court that he could be deported as a result of the plea ( see People v Lopez , 65 Misc 3d 156[A] , 2019 NY Slip Op 51960[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Moreno , 58 Misc 3d 160[A] , 2018 NY Slip Op 50289[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; see also People v R

2020The defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's alleged misstatement had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standards ( cf. People v Malik , 166 AD3d 650 , 652; People v Roberts , 143 AD3d 843, 846 ).

2022Consequently, based upon this clear admonition, defendant failed to show prejudice resulting from the alleged deficiencies in his attorney's advice ( see Jae Lee v United States , 582 US —, — n 4, 137 S Ct 1958 , 1968 n 4 [2017]; Rodriguez , 150 AD3d 1029 ; Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721 ; Lopez , 2019 NY Slip Op 51960[U] ; Moreno , 2018 NY Slip Op 50289[U] ).

2019Consequently, based upon these clear admonitions, defendant cannot show prejudice resulting from the alleged deficiencies in his attorney's performance ( see Lee v United States , 137 S Ct 1958 , 1968 n 4 [2017]; Rodriguez , 150 AD3d 1029 ; Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721 ; see generally Moreno , 58 Misc 3d 160[A] , 2018 NY Slip Op 50289[U] ).

2022Here, defendant failed to establish that his attorney's alleged failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standard since, prior to entering his guilty plea, he was made indisputably aware by the court that he could be deported as a result of the plea ( see People v Lopez , 65 Misc 3d 156[A] , 2019 NY Slip Op 51960[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Moreno , 58 Misc 3d 160[A] , 2018 NY Slip Op 50289[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; see also People v R

2019Here, defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's alleged deficient performance had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standard since he was subsequently made aware, prior to entering his guilty plea, by both the court and the prosecutor, as well as through the conviction waiver of rights form which he had executed, that he could be deported ( see People v Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721 [2014] [finding that the County Court had properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his

2013His allegations failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether an incentive to remain in the United States would have made it rational to reject the plea offer in favor of risking a sentence of up to 12 additional years in prison by proceeding to trial (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US at 372 ; People v Gooden, 34 Misc 3d 1210[A] , 2012 NY Slip Op 50029[U] , *6 [2012]; cf. People v Picea, 97 AD3d at 184; People v McKenzie, 4 AD3d 437, 439-440 [2004]).

2013His allegations failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether an incentive to remain in the United States would have made it rational to reject the plea offer in favor of risking a sentence of up to 12 additional years in prison by proceeding to trial (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US at 372 ; People v Gooden, 34 Misc 3d 1210[A] , 2012 NY Slip Op 50029[U] , *6 [2012]; cf. People v Picea, 97 AD3d at 184; People v McKenzie, 4 AD3d 437, 439-440 [2004]).

2024The defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's alleged misstatement had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standards ( see People v Facey , 180 AD3d 927, 929 ; People v Rodriguez , 150 AD3d 1029, 1030-1031 ; People v Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721, 722 ).

2019Here, defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's alleged deficient performance had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standard since he was subsequently made aware, prior to entering his guilty plea, by both the court and the prosecutor, as well as through the conviction waiver of rights form which he had executed, that he could be deported ( see People v Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721 [2014] [finding that the County Court had properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his

2018Defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his attorney's allegedly deficient advice had the requisite impact on his defense under either the federal or state standards since he was subsequently made indisputably aware by the court that he "will be deported" before he entered his guilty plea ( see United States v Bhindar , 2010 WL 2633858 [US Dist Ct, SD NY, 2010, No. 07 Cr 711-04]; Ellington v United States , 2010 WL 1631497 [US Dist Ct, SD NY, 2010, No. 09 Civ 4539]; People v Rodriguez , 150 AD3d 1029 [2017]; People v Rampersaud , 121 AD3d 721 [2014];