People v Fofana (Sidy)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Fofana (Sidy) 2018 NY Slip Op 50214(U) Decided on February 16, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 16, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.
571082/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sidy Fofana, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered October 15, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him to a fine of $75.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.) rendered, October 15, 2015, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument charging criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 221.10[1]) was not jurisdictionally defective. The deponent police officer's allegations that he observed the defendant "inside Tompkins Square Park, near the north west corner of Avenue B and East 8th Street," "holding one cigarette containing marijuana," and that the officer "took the cigarette ... from on top of a fence where [he] observed the defendant place it," were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish the public place element of the charged offense (see Penal Law § 240.00; People v Afilal, 26 NY3d 1050, 1052 [2015]) and that the marijuana was "open to public view" (Penal Law § 221.10; see People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738 [2012]; Matter of Kawon W., 127 AD3d 668 [2015]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the fine. Although defendant claims that he is indigent, he never sought relief from the fine by way of a CPL 420.10(5) motion for resentencing (see People v Toledo, 101 AD3d 571 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 16, 2018

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.