People v Barlow (James)

[*1] People v Barlow (James) 2015 NY Slip Op 50237(U) Decided on March 2, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 2, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570350/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

James Barlow, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered March 29, 2013, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of theft of services, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered March 29, 2013, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is lacking in merit. As defendant effectively concedes, the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated using the standard applicable to a misdemeanor complaint in view of his knowing waiver of the right to prosecution by information (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). Under the lesser standard, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of theft of services (Penal Law § 165.15[3]), the offense to which he ultimately pleaded guilty. In this regard, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that at a specified time defendant entered into "an area enclosed by the turnstiles and gates" of a designated subway station "by jumping over the turnstile" and that defendant "lacked permission or authority to enter beyond the turnstiles without paying." No additional evidentiary detail was 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]; see People v Adam O., 45 Misc 3d 48 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1033 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: March 02, 2015