Opinion
570310/12
09-14-2016
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herbert Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.H.O.), rendered March 1, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and sentencing him to a fine of $400.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Robert H. Straus, J.H.O.), rendered March 1, 2012, affirmed.
As the People concede, the record fails to support the conclusion that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]). Nevertheless, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the second degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle charge (see People v Scott, 45 Misc 3d 128[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51519[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2014]; see also People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n 1 [2015]; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]), dismissal is not warranted.
The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. The misdemeanor information, including the "certified abstract of [defendant's] driving record" and certified proofs of mailing of notices of suspension of defendant's driver's licence, was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while knowing or having reason to know that his licence had been suspended or revoked (see People v Outerbridge, 51 Misc 3d 126[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50336[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 27NY3d 1137 [2016]) and while having in effect three or more suspensions, imposed on at least three separate dates, for failure to answer, appear or pay a fine (see People v Porras, 46 Misc 3d 149[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50248[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1206 [2015]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the fine.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur I concur I concur Decision Date: September 14, 2016