Opinion
No. 570372/17
09-27-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rasheed Campbell, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: BRIGANTTI, J.P., TISCH, MICHAEL, JJ.
PER CURIAM
In consolidated criminal appeals, defendant appeals from three judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Shari Ruth Michels, J.), rendered May 11, 2017, convicting him, upon his pleas of guilty, of three counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgments of conviction (Shari Ruth Michels, J.), rendered May 11, 2017, affirmed.
Defendant was charged in three accusatory instruments with various offenses arising from separate incidents where he either accessed, entered or otherwise exercised control over motor vehicles without permission or consent of their owner. As part of a global resolution of these prosecutions, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. The third-degree unauthorized use of a vehicle counts in each accusatory instrument, assessed under the standard applicable to an information (see People v Hatton, 26 N.Y.3d 364, 368 [2015]), were jurisdictionally valid because they contained "nonconclusory factual allegations that, if assumed to be true, address[ed] each element of the crime charged, thereby affording reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed that offense" (People v Matthew P., 26 N.Y.3d 332, 335-336 [2015], quoting People v Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738, 741 [2012]; see People v Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 228-229 [2009]). The informations describe in detail how, on three separate occasions, defendant either exercised control of or otherwise used motor vehicles - i.e. on August 17, 2016, he opened the door to a black Chrysler Sedan with the key; on October 3, 2016, defendant used a key to enter a Nissan Quest and sat in the driver's seat; on April 22, 2017, defendant approached a black BMW with a key and electronic remote and activated the alarm - and that on each occasion he acted without consent of the respective owners of said vehicles (see People v McCaleb, 25 N.Y.2d 394, 399 [1969]; People v Johnson, 123 A.D.3d 631 [2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1203 [2015]).
Since the informations were jurisdictionally valid with respect to the offenses to which defendant pleaded guilty, he is not aggrieved by any alleged defects in the other charged offenses (see People v Ruiz, 146 A.D.3d 417 [2017], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1188 [2017]).
In view of our determination, defendant's alternative argument that his conviction under one of the (allegedly defective) dockets should be vacated because it was induced by a promise of a concurrent sentence with his conviction in the other cases, is unavailing (see People v Rodriguez, 153 A.D.3d 235, 247-248 [2017], affd 31 N.Y.3d 1067 [2018]). In any event, the only relief which the defendant requests with respect to the allegedly defective charge is dismissal of that accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm this 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 People v Teron, 139 A.D.3d 450 [2016]).
All concur