People v Rivas (Angel)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Rivas (Angel) 2015 NY Slip Op 50474(U) Decided on April 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570446/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Angel Rivas, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered January 29, 2011, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered January 29, 2011, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed and surcharge, if paid, remitted.

By misdemeanor complaint dated January 28, 2011, defendant was charged with criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15[1]), criminal trespass in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.10[a]) and trespass (see Penal Law § 140.05). At arraignment the following day, defendant pled guilty to the charged offense of second degree criminal trespass and was thereupon sentenced, as agreed, to a conditional discharge. The two-page plea colloquy reflects that defendant, through counsel, accepted the People's plea offer; that defendant pled guilty to the charge; and that the court accepted defendant's plea without informing him of any of his constitutional rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]).

Defendant's Boykin claims, reviewable on direct appeal in the circumstances presented (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359 [2013]), are meritorious and mandate reversal, since the plea record, such as there is, does not affirmatively demonstrate defendant's understanding or waiver of his fundamental constitutional rights. As was true in Tyrell, the record here shows "a complete absence of discussion of any of the pertinent constitutional rights; none are addressed by the court, defense counsel or defendant. Nor is there any indication that defendant spoke with his attorney regarding the constitutional consequences of taking a plea — in fact, th[is] case[ ][was] ... resolved during arraignment within [one] day[ ] of arrest."

Inasmuch as defendant has served his sentence, we dismiss the accusatory instrument in lieu of ordering a new trial (see People v Moore, 24 NY3d 1030 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: April 07, 2015



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.