Opinion
19-391
06-25-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Suzanne J. Adams, J.), rendered March 2, 2019, affirmed.
The record as a whole establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. At the plea proceeding, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of resisting arrest in exchange for a sentence of time served, counsel waived formal allocution, and, in response to questioning from the court, defendant stated that he had ample time to discuss his case with counsel, waived specific constitutional rights, including his rights to a trial by jury and to remain silent, and admitted that he intentionally attempted to prevent a police officer from effecting an authorized arrest (see People v. Conceicao , 26 NY3d 375 [2015] ; People v. Sougou , 26 NY3d 1052 [2015] ). There was nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's ability to make a voluntary decision to plead guilty was impaired in any way by his use of alcohol (see People v. Rodriguez , 83 AD3d 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011] ; People v. Royster , 40 AD3d 885 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 881 [2007] ). The fact that defendant, earlier in the plea, stated "I don't understand," does not invalidate the plea accepted after the court subsequently explained the terms of the plea, and defendant thereafter acknowledged his "understanding" of the offer and stated that he was pleading guilty "freely and voluntarily."
In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm the conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Because we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see e.g. People v. Teron , 139 AD3d 450 [2016] ).
We have considered and rejected defendant's claim that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally defective. The authorized arrest element of resisting arrest was sufficiently charged by way of allegations establishing probable cause to arrest defendant for violating the City's open-container law (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 10—125[b] ), based upon the officer's observation of defendant "in front" of 175 West 4th Street, "holding and drinking an open can of beer" (see People v. Basono , 122 AD3d 553 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1069 [2015] ; People v. Canty , 55 AD3d 330 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 896 [2008] ).
All concur.