People v Basta (Sherif)

[*1] People v Basta (Sherif) 2018 NY Slip Op 51300(U) Decided on September 14, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 14, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570013/17

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sherif Basta, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Thomas Carroll, J.H.O.), rendered December 21, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed driving, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Thomas Carroll, J.H.O.), rendered December 21, 2016, affirmed.

Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, even though the enumeration of defendant's rights under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) was deficient (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Defendant pleaded guilty to unlicensed driving, a traffic infraction, in exchange for a $100 fine, in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument whose top count was aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, an unclassified misdemeanor. The plea occurred three months after defendant was issued a desk appearance ticket and five weeks after arraignment, defendant had counsel on the case, and he personally confirmed that he had "authorized his attorney to plead guilty on his behalf" and that he was pleading guilty "freely and voluntarily." Moreover, his attorney announced at the start of the plea proceeding, without the need for any additional discussion, that defendant had decided to plead guilty and "authorize[d]" the plea, a fact which "confirms that defendant made the decision to plead guilty after consulting with counsel prior to the start of the proceeding" (People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 384 [2015]).

Defendant's claim that the Judicial Hearing Officer acted without jurisdiction in presiding over his guilty plea and sentencing is both unpreserved and without merit (see People v Abdrabelnaby, 58 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1113 [2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 14, 2018