<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Daniel Suarez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Sheryl L. Parker, J.H.O.), rendered April 1, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Sheryl L. Parker, J.H.O.), rendered April 1, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (<a href="../2015/2015_08615.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375</a>, 382 [2015]; <a href="../2015/2015_08617.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052</a>, 1054 [2015]). At the plea proceeding, which occurred over five months after arraignment, defendant, with counsel by his side, pleaded guilty to the charged offense of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree; admitted that, on the date and time in question, he was driving a vehicle with knowledge that his license was suspended; stated his understanding of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, such as the right to a trial, the right to confront and to cross-examine witnesses, the right to remain silent; and that he "discussed all of this" with his attorney. Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights (<i>see Boykin v Alabama</i>, 395 US 238 [1969]), notwithstanding the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived during the course of the allocution (<i>see People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d at 1054; <a href="../2016/2016_02904.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Simmons</i>, 138 AD3d 520</a> [2016], <i>lv denied </i>27 NY3d 1139 [2016]). Contrary to defendant's present claim, nothing that occurred at a prior proceeding undermined defendant's unqualified allocution to the charged offense (<a href="../2014/2014_05460.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Wasley</i>, 119 AD3d 1216</a>, 1217 [2014],<i> lv denied </i>24 NY3d 1048 [2014]).</p><p>In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the third degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle charge (<a href="../2014/2014_51891.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Murray</i>, 46 Misc 3d 136</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51891[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]; <i>see also People v Conceicao </i>26 NY3d at 385 n 1 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]), dismissal is not warranted and therefore we affirm.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 16, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>