People v Afilal

[*1] People v Afilal 2014 NY Slip Op 50851(U) Decided on June 4, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Lowe, III, Shulman, JJ.
570127/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Abdelouahad Afilal, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), rendered January 9, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), rendered January 9, 2012, affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find the record sufficient to establish defendant's understanding and waiver of his Boykin rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY2d 359, 366 [2013]), and of his entry of an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea. In defendant's presence, defense counsel acknowledged that defendant agreed to waive "formal allocution," and defendant personally confirmed, in response to the court's questioning, that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and because he was in fact guilty, that he understood that he was giving up his right to a trial, and that he had "had a chance to fully discuss this plea and all the possible consequences with [his]; lawyer" (see People v Perez, __, AD3d __, 2014 NY Slip Op 02518 [1st Dept 2014]; People v Jackson, 114 AD3d 807 [2014]). A plea of guilty "will not be invalidated solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him or her a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea'" (People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365, quoting People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 16, [1983]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's jurisdictional point.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 04, 2014