People v Philbert (Courtney)

[*1] People v Philbert (Courtney) 2019 NY Slip Op 50300(U) Decided on March 13, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 13, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570302/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Courtney Philbert, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J. at plea, Kevin B. McGrath, J. at sentencing) rendered March 14, 2013, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at sentencing), rendered March 14, 2013, affirmed.

The misdemeanor complaint was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.20). Defendant's possession of the forged instruments (see Penal Law § 170.00[7]) - New Jersey and Pennsylvania driver's licenses - was satisfied by allegations that these out-of-state licenses contained a hologram that was different from the hologram on genuine New Jersey and Pennsylvania driver's licenses; the "peeling" laminate on the licenses was different from the laminate on a genuine license; and the licenses bore a photo of the defendant "but a name different from that of the defendant's true identity." Furthermore, the fact that the licenses bear defendant's photograph provides a sound basis for the inference that defendant had knowledge of and actively participated in manufacturing the false identification documents (see People v Rodriguez, 17 NY3d 486, 490 [2011]). A jury could also infer that defendant had the intent to defraud, since "there was no reason for defendant to knowingly possess [such] false identity documents unless [s]he intended to present them as real, i.e., to defraud or deceive another" (People v Rodriguez, 71 AD3d 450, 453 [2010], affd 17 NY3d 486).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 13, 2019