Opinion
570925/15
01-10-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angel Ferrer, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., McShan, Silvera, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered November 12, 2014, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered November 12, 2014, affirmed.
In view of the defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 521 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid, since the factual allegations established reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25). The instrument recited that defendant removed complainant's (his grandmother's) bank card from her purse, made an unauthorized transaction in the amount of $65.00 with the card and that defendant admitted to the arresting officer that he used his grandmother's bank card to make the transaction (see People v Riley, 55 Misc.3d 144 [A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50644[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 952 [2017]; see also People v Mazyck, 70 Misc.3d 141 [A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50137[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1121 [2021]). These allegations and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant "exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights" (People v Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 118 [1986]). Any assertion that defendant had permission to take the card or intended to repay his grandmother "was a matter to be raised as an evidentiary defense... not by insistence that this [instrument] was jurisdictionally defective" (People v Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360 [2000]).
The record establishes that defendant's guilty plea to petit larceny in exchange for a sentence of time served was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375 [2015]). At the plea proceeding, defendant stated that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, waived specific constitutional rights, including his right to a jury trial, to question witnesses against him and to remain silent, and admitted his guilt to taking and using his grandmother's bank card without her permission or authority. Contrary to defendant's present contention, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a full factual allocution where, as here, defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea (see People v Goldstein, 12 N.Y.3d 295, 300-301 [2009]; People v Seeber, 4 N.Y.3d 780 [2005]). 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 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 People v Teron, 139 A.D.3d 450 [2016]).
All concur.