People v Carter (Jason)

[*1] People v Carter (Jason) 2015 NY Slip Op 51377(U) Decided on September 29, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 29, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570011/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jason Carter, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of possession of an air pistol (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-131[b]), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered December 5, 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 possessed an air pistol within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10-131(b). In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that police recovered from defendant's backpack "one air pistol" which the officer determined "was in fact an air pistol based on [the officer's] observation that said pistol is capable of propelling a projective by means of a spring or air, has an open barrel, and was operable at the time of its recovery from defendant." 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]).

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is unpreserved for appellate review, since he never moved to withdraw the plea or to vacate his conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 29, 2015