People v Thompson (Rita)

[*1] People v Thompson (Rita) 2014 NY Slip Op 51892(U) Decided on December 31, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 31, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
571043/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rita Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered October 5, 2012, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered October 5, 2012, affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find the record sufficient to establish defendant's understanding and waiver of her Boykin rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395

US 238 [1969]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 366 [2013]), and of her entry of an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea. In full satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging defendant with, inter alia, two counts of assault in the third degree, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of second degree harassment, a violation, in return for a negotiated sentence of time served. 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 she was pleading guilty of her own free will and understood that she was giving up her right to trial. 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]). This is particularly so where, as here, "the record shows that defendant had ample opportunity to review her options in consultation with counsel" (People v Perez, 116 AD3d 511, ———— [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 31, 2014