People v Stovall (Charmaine)

[*1] People v Stovall (Charmaine) 2018 NY Slip Op 51338(U) Decided on September 21, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570279/17

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Charmaine Stovall, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Josh E. Hanshaft, J.), rendered April 19, 2017, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Josh E. Hanshaft, J.), rendered April 19, 2017, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of her right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the pleading standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25). The instrument alleges that defendant, a sales associate at the American Girl store on Fifth Avenue, "remov[ed] money from cash registers or improperly handl[ed] money" on several specified dates, resulting in specifically quantified "cash shortages attributed to cash registers in the store" (see People v Wilkerson, 51 Misc 3d 149[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50805[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 938 [2016]; see generally People v Waugh, 52 AD3d 853 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 796 [2008]).

Defendant, by her guilty plea, forfeited any claim that the court did not properly convert the felony complaint into a misdemeanor complaint pursuant to CPL 180.50(3)(a)(iii) (see People v Hunter, 5 NY3d 750, 751 [2005]; People v Rojas, 2 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50101[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]), and such claim is, in any event, both unpreserved and without merit. Even were we to accept this claim, the proper remedy would be to remand for further proceedings on the felony complaint (see People v Spooner, 22 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52664[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2008]), and defendant specifically declines such relief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 21, 2018