People v. Carrington (Craig)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: February 13, 2018
• Docket: 2018 NYSlipOp 50171(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

The People of the State of New York,

against

Craig Carrington, Defendant-Appellant.

In consolidated criminal actions, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered July 16, 2014, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of public urination and sentencing him to a fine of $250, and (2) a judgment (same court and Judge), rendered July 16, 2014, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him to a fine of $100.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction under docket number 2014SN030570 (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered July 16, 2014, affirmed. Judgment of conviction under docket number 2014SN034734 (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered July 16, 2014, modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the fine to $75, and otherwise affirmed.

The information under docket number 2014SN030570 charging unlawful possession of marijuana (see Penal Law § 221.05), was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument set forth sufficient factual allegations to show the basis for the conclusion that the substance at issue was marijuana (see People v Smalls, 26 NY3d 1064 [2015]; People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 231-232 [2009]; People v Pearson, 78 AD3d 445 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 799 [2011]), by reciting that defendant was "observed unlawfully possessing marijuana" and that a positive field test ("FTP # 1000471848"), a copy of which was attached to the summons, indicated that the "3 clear glassine envelopes" recovered from defendant contained marijuana (see Matter of Angel A., 92 NY2d 430 [1998]; People v Swamp, 84 NY2d 725 [1995]).

We find the fine imposed under docket number 2014SN034734, following defendant's conviction for public urination, to be excessive to the extent indicated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 13, 2018