People v. Dawkins (Anthony)
This text of 68 Misc. 3d 135(A) (People v. Dawkins (Anthony)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
People v Dawkins (2020 NY Slip Op 51092(U)) [*1]
| People v Dawkins (Anthony) |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 51092(U) [68 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
| Decided on September 25, 2020 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 25, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
570208/19
against
Anthony Dawkins, 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 March 18, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), rendered March 18, 2019, affirmed.
Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [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 petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25), the charge to which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. A manager at a specified Duane Reade store alleged that on January 17, 2019, at about 10:30 p.m., he observed defendant remove "fourteen packages of condoms and eight vitamins" from the shelves, "conceal the items in [his] jacket" and "attempt to leave the store in possession of the property without paying for it." The instrument further alleges that the manager recovered the merchandise from defendant. Contrary to defendant's present claim, these allegations were nonconclusory and facially sufficient to support the charged offense (see People v Livingston, 150 AD3d 448 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]; see also People v Olivo, 52 NY3d 309, 318-319 [1981]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 25, 2020
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 Misc. 3d 135(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51092(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dawkins-anthony-nyappterm-2020.