People v Roman (Shawn)

[*1] People v Roman (Shawn) 2018 NY Slip Op 50916(U) Decided on June 18, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 18, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.
570892/14

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shawn Roman, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered September 17, 2014, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered September 17, 2014, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument charging criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 221.40) was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument recited that a police officer observed defendant "hand a separately charged defendant ... small objects in exchange for money"; that the officer "took two clear bags containing marijuana from" that separately charged defendant; and that another officer recovered "three clear bags containing marijuana" from defendant. Based upon these allegations, the fact-finder could infer that the bags of marijuana recovered from the separately charged individual were the same objects that defendant had given said individual in return for money (see People v Dorner, 119 AD3d 404 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1083 [2014]; People v Bolden, 6 AD3d 315 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 637 [2004]).

Our review of the record establishes that defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, despite the absence of a full enumeration of defendant's rights under Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 (1969) (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]; People v Simmons, 138 AD3d 520 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1139 [2016]). In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests that this court affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao 26 NY3d at 375, 385 n 1 [2015]; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 18, 2018