People v. Cortes (Corey)

71 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50546(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: June 11, 2021
• Docket: 570350/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Cortes (2021 NY Slip Op 50546(U)) [*1]

People v Cortes (Corey)

2021 NY Slip Op 50546(U) [71 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on June 11, 2021

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 11, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McShan, J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570350/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Corey Cortes, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), rendered April 10, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of forgery in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), rendered April 10, 2019, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of forgery in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.05) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.20). The instrument recites that a police officer inside a specified subway station observed defendant "bend one MetroCard along the magnetic strip and swipe the MetroCard multiple times in an attempt to gain access to the subway transit system;" that the officer recovered the MetroCard from defendant's hand; and that the officer knew from his training and experience that "bending MetroCards in this way can alter a card with zero balance so that it will provide a ride to the user" (see People v Mattocks, 12 NY3d 326, 330 [2009]; People v Roman, 8 Misc 3d 1026[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51291[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2005]). No additional evidentiary details were required for the People's pleading to provide "adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy" (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]).

The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382-383 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054—1055 [2015]). Defendant waived formal allocution, admitted his guilt to the charged forgery offense, stated that he had time to discuss his case with counsel, and waived specific constitutional rights, including the right to trial. Contrary to defendant's present claim, defense counsel's request that the case be "marked for medical attention" at the start of the plea proceeding did not engender doubt regarding the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]). Defendant did not indicate at his plea that he was motivated by a desire to obtain medical treatment (see People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449 [2011], lv denied 17 [*2]NY3d 800 [2011]); People v Greeman, 194 AD2d 397 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 719 [1993]). Defendant was rational and coherent throughout the plea proceedings, capably responded to the questions put to him, demonstrated his understanding of the terms and consequences of the plea, and gave no indication of impairment at that time which would have alerted the court to the need of a further inquiry (see People v Brooks, 89 AD3d 747 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 955 [2012]; People v M'Lady, 59 AD3d 568 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 918 [2009]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, 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 remanding the matter to Criminal Court for further proceedings, dismissal is not warranted and therefore, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n 1; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 11, 2021