People v. Mohammad (Yusuf)
This text of 73 Misc. 3d 140(A) (People v. Mohammad (Yusuf)) 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 Mohammad (2021 NY Slip Op 51182(U)) [*1]
| People v Mohammad (Yusuf) |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 51182(U) [73 Misc 3d 140(A)] |
| Decided on December 15, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead P.J., Hagler, Silvera, JJ.
570579/19
against
Yusuf Mohammad, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann D. Thompson, J.), rendered June 27, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Ann D. Thompson, J.), rendered June 27, 2019, affirmed.
Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea to disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), in exchange for a promised sentence of a conditional discharge, was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Defendant's contention that the plea was invalid because the court failed to advise him of the duration of the conditional discharge is unpreserved (see People v Torres, __ NY3d __, 2021 NY Slip Op 05448 [2021]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find it without merit (see People v Kidd, 105 AD3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013]; People v Kripanidhi, 59 Misc 3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]), lv denied 32 NY3d 938 [2018]).
In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since we do not find that a dismissal is appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 15, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
73 Misc. 3d 140(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 51182(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mohammad-yusuf-nyappterm-2021.