People v Keita (Boubacar)

[*1] People v Keita (Boubacar) 2017 NY Slip Op 51359(U) Decided on October 13, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 13, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
14-290

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Boubacar Keita, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ralph A. Fabrizio, J., at plea; Verna L. Saunders, J., at sentencing), rendered February 5, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated driving while intoxicated per se, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ralph A. Fabrizio, J., at plea; Verna L. Saunders, J., at sentencing), rendered February 5, 2013, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging him with aggravated driving while intoxicated per se (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2-a][a]]). The information - comprising the misdemeanor complaint and police officers' supporting depositions, together with a Chemical Test Analysis certificate sworn to by the police officer who administered defendant's blood alcohol test — alleged, inter alia, that the defendant was observed operating his vehicle as it struck both the rear of a parked New York City Police Department patrol car and the passenger side of a parked Honda; that defendant had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a strong smell of an alcoholic beverage on his breath; and that the results of the breath test measured defendant's blood alcohol content at .18%. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that the defendant was guilty of aggravated driving while intoxicated per se (see People v Hernandez, 46 Misc 3d 151[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50293[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1109 [2016]; People v Collucci, 36 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51618[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 931 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concurI concur
Decision Date: October 13, 2017