People v. Alonzo - Criminal Conviction Affirmation
Summary
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed a judgment convicting Jose Ramos Alonzo of rape in the first degree. The court found the defendant's contentions regarding an enhanced sentence and the validity of his appeal waiver to be unpreserved or without merit.
What changed
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, convicting Jose Ramos Alonzo of rape in the first degree upon his plea of guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing that the County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without a sufficient hearing. The appellate court found this contention to be unpreserved for review, as the defendant neither requested a hearing nor moved to withdraw his plea. The court also noted that an enhanced sentence may be imposed if a defendant violates a condition of a plea agreement by failing to truthfully answer questions during a probation interview, and that the County Court's inquiry was sufficient in this case.
The defendant also appealed based on an alleged excessive sentence and cruel and unusual punishment, but the appellate court found his waiver of the right to appeal to be valid, precluding review of these claims. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the defendant's remaining contentions to be unpreserved or without merit. This decision has no immediate compliance implications for regulated entities beyond reinforcing the importance of adhering to plea agreement conditions and the finality of valid appeal waivers.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note
People v. Alonzo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01208
Docket Number: Ind. No. 70794/23
Combined Opinion
People v Alonzo (2026 NY Slip Op 01208)
| People v Alonzo |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01208 |
| Decided on March 4, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on March 4, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
JANICE A. TAYLOR
JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.
2025-06227
(Ind. No. 70794/23)
*[1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Jose Ramos Alonzo, appellant.**
Alex Smith, Middletown, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Christopher P. Borek of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J.), rendered February 24, 2025, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without holding a "sufficient" hearing is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant neither requested a hearing or that any additional inquiry be conducted nor moved to withdraw his plea on this ground (see People v Durkin, 214 AD3d 741, 742; People v Shealy, 195 AD3d 1047, 1048). In any event, "[a]n enhanced sentence may be imposed on a defendant who, in violation of an express condition of a plea agreement, has failed to truthfully answer questions during a probation department interview" (People v Guzman-Hernandez, 135 AD3d 957, 957; see People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185, 187). Under the circumstances of this case, the court's inquiry was sufficient to determine that the defendant had violated a condition of his plea agreement (see People v Durkin, 214 AD3d at 742; People v Shealy, 195 AD3d at 1048).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal is valid and precludes appellate review of his contentions that the sentence imposed was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256; People v Myke, 232 AD3d 913).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when New York Appellate Division publishes new changes.