People v Chkhartishvil (Mikheil)

[*1] People v Chkhartishvil (Mikheil) 2015 NY Slip Op 50240(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
570508/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Mikheil Chkhartishvil, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered March 29, 2012, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered March 29, 2012, 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 petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25), the offense to which he ultimately pleaded guilty. In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that a security officer at a specified Sephora store observed defendant remove "two fragrances" from a display, conceal them in his coat pocket, and "attempt to leave the store in possession of the property without paying for it." 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 NY2d 1142, 1143 [2014]; see generally People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 315-316 [1981]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 02, 2015