People v. Manuel (Frank)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manuel (Frank)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 24, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51397(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Manuel (Frank) (People v. Manuel (Frank)) 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. Manuel (Frank), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Frank Manuel, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]). It charged all the elements of third-degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]). The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and domestic incident report signed by the arresting officer and the complainant — alleged, inter alia, that "defendant str[uck] [complainant] about the face with an open hand, causing bruising to [her] face, bleeding to [her] mouth, substantial pain, and loosening [of her] teeth." These allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed the crime of third degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]; People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]).

Contrary to defendant's present argument, the misspelling and/or juxtaposition of his first and last names in various portions of the accusatory instrument were nonjurisdictional defects subject to amendment (see CPL 170.35[1][a]; People v Matos, 32 Misc 3d 136[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51472[U][App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1103 [2012]; People v Iqbal, 31 Misc 3d 94, 96 [2011]; see also People v Ganett, 51 NY2d 991, 993 [1980]), and defendant's right to challenge the defects was forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Martinez, 52 AD3d 68 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 791 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 24, 2017

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Frank Manuel, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]). It charged all the elements of third-degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]). The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and domestic incident report signed by the arresting officer and the complainant — alleged, inter alia, that "defendant str[uck] [complainant] about the face with an open hand, causing bruising to [her] face, bleeding to [her] mouth, substantial pain, and loosening [of her] teeth." These allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed the crime of third degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]; People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]).

Contrary to defendant's present argument, the misspelling and/or juxtaposition of his first and last names in various portions of the accusatory instrument were nonjurisdictional defects subject to amendment (see CPL 170.35[1][a]; People v Matos, 32 Misc 3d 136[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51472[U][App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 1103 [2012]; People v Iqbal, 31 Misc 3d 94, 96 [2011]; see also People v Ganett, 51 NY2d 991, 993 [1980]), and defendant's right to challenge the defects was forfeited by his guilty plea (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Martinez, 52 AD3d 68 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 791 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 24, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Manuel (Frank), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manuel-frank-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack