People v. Justin C.

70 Misc. 3d 135(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50040(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 15-246
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Justin C. (2021 NY Slip Op 50040(U)) [*1]

People v Justin C.

2021 NY Slip Op 50040(U) [70 Misc 3d 135(A)]

Decided on January 22, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 22, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, McShan, JJ.
15-246

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Justin C., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.) rendered September 3, 2014, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of climbing, jumping or suspending of oneself from structures prohibited, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered September 3, 2014, affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to his plea allocution, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable because nothing in the record cast significant doubt on the knowing or voluntary nature of defendant's guilty plea (see People v Buie, 128 AD3d 1281 [2015]; People v Diaz, 69 Misc 3d 132[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51210[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2020]).

As an alternative holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. At the plea proceeding, defendant admitted he was guilty of violating New York City Administrative Code § 10-167, 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 (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]). Defendant also executed a form acknowledging receipt of a written copy of the terms of the conditional discharge and its expiration date (see CPL 410.10[1]; People v Valentin, 66 Misc 3d 136[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50044[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 945 [2020]) and his contention that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of the requirement of his conditional discharge that he lead a law-abiding life for one year is unavailing (see 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]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: January 22, 2021