The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld the conviction of Milton Reyes-Morales for attempted rape in the first degree. This decision, made on May 21, 2026, affects Reyes-Morales, who is currently serving a six-year prison sentence followed by ten years of post-release supervision. The ruling clarifies the legal standards surrounding guilty pleas and the responsibilities of defense counsel.

The case originated from a seven-count indictment against Reyes-Morales, who ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted rape. His plea agreement required him to waive his right to appeal, but he later sought to challenge the validity of his plea and the effectiveness of his legal counsel.

Background

Milton Reyes-Morales was indicted on multiple charges related to attempted rape. In a plea deal, he accepted a guilty plea to attempted rape in the first degree, which allowed him to avoid facing the other charges. The plea was entered on April 6, 2021, in the County Court of Schenectady County, presided over by Judge Mark Caruso.

After his conviction, Reyes-Morales appealed, arguing that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. He contended that he did not fully understand the implications of his plea and claimed that he was not adequately informed about the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea. However, the court noted that he did not raise these issues before the County Court, which is necessary for them to be considered on appeal.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, which included Judges Garry, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Powers, and Mackey, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court ruled that Reyes-Morales's assertion regarding the validity of his plea was unpreserved for review because he failed to move to withdraw his plea or raise the issue in the County Court. The ruling stated, "Defendant's assertion that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary survives his unchallenged appeal waiver but is unpreserved for our review."

Furthermore, the court addressed Reyes-Morales's claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that this issue was also unpreserved due to the lack of a postallocution motion. The court emphasized that the record showed the County Court had adequately informed Reyes-Morales about the potential immigration consequences of his plea. The ruling concluded with the affirmation of the judgment, stating, "ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed."

Impact

This ruling reinforces the importance of procedural requirements in the appeals process. It highlights that defendants must raise issues regarding the validity of their pleas or the effectiveness of their counsel in the trial court to preserve those claims for appeal. The decision serves as a reminder that failing to follow proper legal procedures can limit a defendant's ability to challenge their conviction later.

The ruling also underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that defendants are informed of their rights and the consequences of their actions when entering a plea. It sets a precedent for similar cases where defendants may seek to appeal based on claims of unknowing or involuntary pleas or ineffective assistance of counsel.

What's Next

Reyes-Morales has the option to pursue further legal avenues, such as filing a motion under CPL article 440, which allows for post-conviction relief based on claims that could not be raised on direct appeal. There are no indications in the court filing that a related case is pending.