People v. Drayton (William)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 2020
Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50025(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Drayton (William) (People v. Drayton (William)) 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.

Bluebook
People v. Drayton (William), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion



The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

William Drayton, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J. at plea; Marc J. Whiten, J. at sentencing), rendered September 20, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Lynn R. Kotler, J. at plea; Marc J. Whiten, J. at sentencing), rendered September 20, 2012, 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. Allegations that police recovered one "switchblade knife" from defendant's pocket, "which opened automatically when informant touched a button," were sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 265.01[2]; People v Berrezueta, 55 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50633[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], affd 31 NY3d 1091 [2018]; see also People v Sans, 26 NY3d 13, 17-18 [2015]). Any hearsay defect in the instrument was waived by defendant's guilty plea (see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 121-123 [2003]). Likewise, deponent's reference to an unidentified "informant" was a nonjurisdictional defect subject to amendment (see CPL 170.35[1][a]) and defendant's right to challenge this defect was forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 15, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Konieczny
813 N.E.2d 626 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Keizer
790 N.E.2d 1149 (New York Court of Appeals, 2003)
The People v. Michael Sans
41 N.E.3d 333 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
People v. Dumay
16 N.E.3d 1150 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
People v. Berrezueta
31 N.Y.3d 1091 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Drayton (William), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drayton-william-nyappterm-2020.