People v. Santana (Randy)
This text of 87 Misc. 3d 133(A) (People v. Santana (Randy)) 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 Santana (Randy) |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 51945(U) [87 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on December 11, 2025 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 11, 2025
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Perez, Alpert, JJ.
570487/19
against
Randy Santana, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Herbert J. Moses, J.), rendered June 4, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Moses, J.), rendered June 4, 2019, affirmed.
In satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging three class A misdemeanors, including criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03), defendant pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a violation, in exchange for a conditional discharge. Our review of the record satisfies us that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]). At the plea proceeding, defendant, among other things, waived prosecution by information and formal allocution, stated that: he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily; he had enough time to discuss the plea with his attorney; and he understood he was giving up his rights to a trial, to remain silent, to call witnesses and to confront the People's witnesses. Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]), notwithstanding that the court omitted the word "jury" from its reference to the right to a trial (see People v Mendez, 148 AD3d 555, 555 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1083 [2017]; People v Williams, 137 AD3d 706, 706 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1141 [2016]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concurDecision Date: December 11, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 Misc. 3d 133(A), 2025 NY Slip Op 51945(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santana-randy-nyappterm-2025.