People v Hightower (Joseph)

[*1] People v Hightower (Joseph) 2016 NY Slip Op 50414(U) Decided on March 28, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Ling-Cohan, J.
570437/14

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Joseph Hightower, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered May 19, 2014, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered May 19, 2014, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.20), the offense to which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. Defendant's possession of a "forged instrument" (Penal Law § 170.00[7]) was satisfied by allegations that the military ID in defendant's possession was "not a valid military ID because the back of the ID was blank, while real military IDs have bar codes and other identifying information on the back[,] [and] . . . have computer chips on them, while defendant's ID had a photo of a computer chip." The knowledge element of the underlying offense was satisfied by allegations that the allegedly false ID had "defendant's name and photo on it" (see People v Rodriguez, 17 NY3d 486, 490 [2011]). A jury could also infer that defendant had the intent to defraud, since "there was no reason for defendant to knowingly possess [such] false identity document[] unless he intended to present [it] as real, i.e., to defraud or deceive another" (People v Rodriguez, 71 AD3d 450, 453 [2010], affd 17 NY3d 486 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 28, 2016