Court Opinion

ID: 4473472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-15 20:06:41.285865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:03.930042
License: Public Domain

<partyblock> 

<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, 

<br><br>against<br><br>Justin Velazquez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br> 

 

 

 

<p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), rendered April 20, 2017, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him, inter alia, to a fine of $100.</p> 

 

 

 

 

<p>Per Curiam.</p> 

<p>Judgment of conviction (Myrna Socorro, J.), rendered April 20, 2017 affirmed.</p> 

<p>In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (<a href="../2014/2014_04038.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518</a>, 521 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument charging defendant with possessing a shotgun without the requisite permit/certificate of registration (<i>see </i>Administrative Code of City of NY  10-303, 10-304) was jurisdictionally valid. Allegations that police recovered a "Black Sears and Roebuck 20 gauge shotgun" from the trunk of defendant's vehicle, and that defendant did not have a permit or certificate of registration for said shotgun were sufficient for pleading purposes, since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (<a href="../2014/2014_02103.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Kasse</i>, 22 NY3d 1142</a> [2014]). </p> 

<p><a href="../2017/2017_27171.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Figueroa </i>(55 Misc 3d 108</a> [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], <i>lv denied</i> 29 NY3d 1126 [2017]), which involved the grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for failure to satisfy the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40(1)(c), is distinguishable. Here, defendant's guilty plea waived any hearsay defect in the accusatory instrument (<i>see People v Keizer</i>, 100 NY2d 114, 121-123 [2003]). </p> 

<p>We perceive no basis for reducing the fine.</p> 

<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> 

<br>I concur I concur 

<br>Decision Date: January 15, 2020 

 

 

<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>