People v Sanago (Sixto)

[*1] People v Sanago (Sixto) 2012 NY Slip Op 50943(U) Decided on May 21, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ
2010-728 K CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sixto Sanago, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered February 16, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [2] [a]) and pleaded guilty thereto. On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument, read together with the attached documentation, was jurisdictionally defective, in that it failed to sufficiently allege that defendant had reason to know that his license had been suspended. As defendant's argument concerning the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is jurisdictional (see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]; People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]), it may be raised on appeal even though defendant never raised this argument in the Criminal Court (see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d at 103; People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 229 [2009]).

In his supporting deposition, the arresting officer alleged that he believed that defendant had reason to know that his license had been suspended based upon the officer's search of the official, computerized records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, which indicated that [*2]defendant's license had been suspended at the time of the instant offense on December 27, 2009 as a result of defendant's failure to answer a summons, and that all such summonses feature a warning that "if you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen (15) days, your license will be suspended. The suspension occurs automatically (by computer) within four (4) weeks of the defendant's failure to answer." The arresting officer further alleged that, during the traffic stop, defendant was unable to produce a valid driver's license. Also supporting an inference that defendant was aware of the suspension of his license was a certified copy of defendant's driving abstract, which was attached to the supporting deposition and listed a 2008 suspension of defendant's license. Thus, the accusatory instrument, read together with the attached documents, sufficiently alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (see CPL 100.15 [3]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [2] [a]), providing reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged (see CPL 100.40 [1] [b]), and establishing, if true, every element of the offense charged (see CPL 100.40 [1] [c]), including that defendant knew or had reason to know of the suspension of his license (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1], [2]; People v Austin, 34 Misc 3d 136[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52402[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; People v Crawley, 32 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51334[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]; People v Mayes, 19 Misc 3d 48 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 21, 2012