People v. Carey (Michael)

77 Misc. 3d 136(A), 2023 NY Slip Op 50041(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 17, 2023
• Docket: 570211/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Carey (2023 NY Slip Op 50041(U)) [*1]

People v Carey (Michael)

2023 NY Slip Op 50041(U) [77 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on January 17, 2023

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 17, 2023

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Michael, JJ.
570211/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Michael Carey, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert Rosenthal, J.), rendered March 8, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert Rosenthal, J.), rendered March 8, 2019, affirmed.

Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]). At the plea proceeding, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the charged offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03) in exchange for a sentence that he attend one session with the CASES New Start program, with a jail alternative of five days if he failed to comply. In response to the court's questioning, defendant admitted his guilt to the underlying crime, stated that he had an opportunity to discuss his case with counsel, and waived specific constitutional rights, including the right to trial, the right to question the People's witnesses, and the right to remain silent. Defendant also executed a form acknowledging receipt of a written copy of the terms of a "one year" conditional discharge and its expiration date (see CPL 410.10[1]), and his contention that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of the requirement that he lead a law abiding life for one year is unavailing (see People v Bush, 38 NY3d 66 [2022]; People v Rivera, 67 Misc 3d 140[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50702[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 931 [2020]; People v Cecilio, 65 Misc 3d 148[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51829[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1127 [2020]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a full factual allocution where, as here, defendant, no novice to the criminal justice system with over 80 prior convictions, clearly understood the charge and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 NY3d 295, 300-301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780 [2005]). Nor was there anything in the record to suggest that defendant's ability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to plead guilty was impaired in any way by [*2]his use of alcohol or drugs (see People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]; People v Royster, 40 AD3d 885 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 881 [2007]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: January 17, 2023