People v Mendieta (Luis)

[*1] People v Mendieta (Luis) 2018 NY Slip Op 50336(U) Decided on March 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 16, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.
13-237

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Luis Mendieta, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Matthew A. Sciarrino, J., at plea; Joanne D. Quinones, J. at sentencing), rendered December 13, 2012, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Matthew A. Sciarrino, J., at plea; Joanne D. Quinones, J. at sentencing), rendered December 13, 2012, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[2][a][iv]). The accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that at a specified date, time and location, defendant was observed operating a motor vehicle on a public highway; that the computer check run by the officer of Department of Motor Vehicles records showed that defendant's driving privilege had been "suspended more than two times on more than two dates and ha[d] not been reinstated"; that "defendant's driving privilege was suspended for failure to answer a New York summons"; and that all such summonses contained a printed notice that "[i]f you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen (15) days your license will be suspended." These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish the elements of the charged offense, including that at the time of the underlying incident, defendant was driving "while knowing or having reason to know" that his license was suspended (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]]; see People v Gerado, 55 Misc 3d 127[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50344[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1079 [2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

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