People v Velazquez (Justin)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Velazquez (Justin) 2020 NY Slip Op 50027(U) Decided on January 15, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 15, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, J.
570374/17

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Justin Velazquez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), rendered April 20, 2017, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him, inter alia, to a fine of $100.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Myrna Socorro, J.), rendered April 20, 2017 affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 521 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument charging defendant with possessing a shotgun without the requisite permit/certificate of registration (see Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 10-303, 10-304) was jurisdictionally valid. Allegations that police recovered a "Black Sears and Roebuck 20 gauge shotgun" from the trunk of defendant's vehicle, and that defendant did not have a permit or certificate of registration for said shotgun were sufficient for pleading purposes, since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]).

People v Figueroa (55 Misc 3d 108 [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1126 [2017]), which involved the grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for failure to satisfy the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40(1)(c), is distinguishable. Here, defendant's guilty plea waived any hearsay defect in the accusatory instrument (see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 121-123 [2003]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the fine.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 15, 2020

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.