People v. Machado-Garcia
Docket 176 KA 23-00327
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02529
- Docket
- 176 KA 23-00327
Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in Supreme Court, Monroe County.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Carlos A. Machado-Garcia's conviction following a guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant argued his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the court failed to advise him about sentencing consequences under Penal Law § 70.25(2-b), and he also raised ineffective-assistance claims. The court held the failure to preserve the plea-advice claim barred review and declined to reach it in the interest of justice. The panel rejected the surviving ineffective-assistance arguments, finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to secure concurrent sentencing.
Issues Decided
- Whether the guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given the court's alleged failure to advise defendant of sentencing consequences under Penal Law § 70.25(2-b).
- Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to entering his plea.
- Whether defense counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to obtain concurrent sentences under Penal Law § 70.25(2-b).
Court's Reasoning
The court found the claim that the plea was involuntary because of insufficient advisement was unpreserved because the defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, and the court declined to review the claim in the interest of justice. Ineffective-assistance claims that would survive a valid waiver of appeal were addressed and rejected: the record did not show counsel's performance infected plea bargaining or caused the defendant to plead, and counsel's failure to obtain concurrent sentences did not amount to ineffective assistance under the circumstances.
Authorities Cited
- Penal Law§ 265.03(3); § 70.25(2-b)
- People v Laury156 AD3d 1473 (4th Dept 2017), lv denied 32 NY3d 939 (2018)
- People v Delorbe35 NY3d 112 (2020)
- CPL 470.15§ 470.15(3)(c)
Parties
- Appellant
- Carlos A. Machado-Garcia
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Victoria M. Argento
- Attorney
- Sarah S. Holt (Conflict Defender); Fabienne N. Santacroce (of counsel)
- Attorney
- Brian P. Green, District Attorney; Ryan Ashe (of counsel)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment of conviction rendered
- 2022-12-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal to New York Court of Appeals
If there are viable state law or constitutional issues worth further review, the defendant may petition for leave to appeal; consult appellate counsel about deadlines and prospects.
- 2
Evaluate post-conviction remedies
If facts support it, counsel could investigate motions to vacate the plea or file a CPL 440 motion on preserved or newly discovered issues, and assess procedural bars.
- 3
Consult counsel about sentence credit or concurrent sentencing options
Discuss with counsel whether any clerical or parole credit adjustments are available and whether any concurrent sentencing relief can be pursued through proper post-sentencing motions.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the conviction entered after the defendant pleaded guilty, rejecting his arguments that the plea was involuntary and that counsel was ineffective in securing concurrent sentences.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Carlos A. Machado-Garcia is affected because his conviction and sentence were upheld; the People (prosecution) prevailed on appeal.
- What does this mean for the defendant's plea claim about sentencing advice?
- The court said the defendant failed to preserve the claim by not moving to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, so it refused to review that claim now.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, defendant could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the Appellate Division affirmed and the record suggests preservation issues and rejected ineffective-assistance claims.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Machado-Garcia - 2026 NY Slip Op 02529 People v Machado-Garcia 2026 NY Slip Op 02529 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v CARLOS A. MACHADO-GARCIA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 176 KA 23-00327 Present: Curran, J.P., Montour, Smith, Ogden, And Delconte, JJ. SARAH S. HOLT, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (FABIENNE N. SANTACROCE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (RYAN ASHE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Victoria M. Argento, J.), rendered December 22, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Defendant contends that the plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because Supreme Court failed to advise him of the sentencing consequences of Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b). By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see People v Laury , 156 AD3d 1473, 1473 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 32 NY3d 939 [2018]; see generally People v Delorbe , 35 NY3d 112, 119 [2020]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Inasmuch as defendant's contentions regarding the effective assistance of counsel would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal to the same extent that they would survive his plea, we need not address the validity of the waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Burgess , — AD3d —, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 01892, *1 [4th Dept 2026]; People v Shaw , 222 AD3d 1401, 1401, 1403 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 42 NY3d 930 [2024]). Defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel prior to entering his plea does not survive his plea because defendant "failed to demonstrate that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Dewiel , 100 AD3d 1524, 1525 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1010 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Richards , 239 AD3d 1330, 1331 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1013 [2025]) . Defendant further contends that defense counsel failed to present sufficient mitigating circumstances at sentencing to warrant the imposition of a sentence that would run concurrently with a sentence imposed on an unrelated conviction ( see Penal Law § 70.25 [2-b]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention survives his guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v McFarley , 144 AD3d 1521, 1522 [4th Dept 2016]), we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, defense counsel's inability to persuade the sentencing court to impose concurrent sentences did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Avent , 178 AD3d 1403, 1405 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 940 [2020]; see People v Smith , 300 AD2d 745, 746 [3d Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 620 [2003]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn