People v Brazier (Rodney)

[*1] People v Brazier (Rodney) 2014 NY Slip Op 51748(U) Decided on December 15, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570769/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rodney Brazier, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered August 4, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), rendered August 4, 2011, 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 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (see Penal Law § 240.50[3][a]), the crime to which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that two 911 calls were made within a two-hour and 15 minute time span from a curbside pay phone, during each of which the caller reported an assault that did not occur; that defendant was observed at that same pay phone at the approximate times that the calls were made; and that in response to the deponent police officer's query as to why the defendant made the "false" 911 calls, defendant stated, in substance, "You guys don't show up fast enough. That's the only way to get you here." No additional evidentiary details were required for the People's pleading to provide "adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy" (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]). Defendant's present argument that his on-the-scene statement did not constitute an admission is both unpreserved and lacking in

merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 15, 2014