People v Pagan (Perfecto)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Pagan (Perfecto) 2011 NY Slip Op 51337(U) Decided on July 15, 2011 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 15, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570420/08.

Respondent,

against

Perfecto Pagan,

JULY 15, 2011 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT May 2011 Term Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ. The People of the State of New York, NY County Clerk's No. Respondent,570420/08 -against- Perfecto Pagan,Calendar No. 08-441 Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the State of New York, Bronx County (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered January 27, 2008, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence. Per Curiam. Judgment of conviction (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered January 27, 2008, affirmed. In light of defense counsel's waiver of defendant's right to be prosecuted upon an information, defendant consented at his plea allocution to prosecution of the charge against him pursuant to a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument in the form of a misdemeanor complaint (see CPL 100.10[4], 170.65[1], [3]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 14 [1984]; People v Tyrell, 30 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52279[U], lv denied 16 NY3d 800 [2011]; People v Riser, 22 Misc 3d 88, 89 [2009]). Moreover, the factual allegations in the misdemeanor complaint that a police officer observed defendant in possession of a "glassine" bag containing heroin "in plain view on a public street," and that the officer believed the substance was heroin based upon his professional training in the identification and packaging of controlled substances, were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to "provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of such instrument" (CPL 100.40[4][b]; see CPL 70.10[2]; People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]). Therefore, we reject defendant's contention that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Tyrell, 30 Misc 3d 128[A]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT I concurI concur I concur Decision Date: July 15, 2011 Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the State of New York, Bronx County (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered January 27, 2008, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.


Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered January 27, 2008, affirmed.

In light of defense counsel's waiver of defendant's right to be prosecuted upon an information, defendant consented at his plea allocution to prosecution of the charge against him pursuant to a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument in the form of a misdemeanor complaint (see CPL 100.10[4], 170.65[1], [3]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 14 [1984]; People v Tyrell, 30 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52279[U], lv denied 16 NY3d 800 [2011]; People v Riser, 22 Misc 3d 88, 89 [2009]).

Moreover, the factual allegations in the misdemeanor complaint that a police officer observed defendant in possession of a "glassine" bag containing heroin "in plain view on a public street," and that the officer believed the substance was heroin based upon his professional training in the identification and packaging of controlled substances, were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to "provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of such instrument" (CPL 100.40[4][b]; see CPL 70.10[2]; People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]). Therefore, we reject defendant's contention that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Tyrell, 30 Misc 3d 128[A]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT
I concurI concur I concur
Decision Date: July 15, 2011