People v Feggins (Shavonda)

[*1] People v Feggins (Shavonda) 2020 NY Slip Op 50546(U) Decided on May 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 13, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570174/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shavonda Feggins, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), rendered February 26, 2019, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), rendered February 26, 2019, affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382-383 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054—1055 [2015]). Defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentence of time served, stated that she had enough time to discuss her plea with counsel, waived specific constitutional rights and acknowledged the facts underlying her commission of the petit larceny offense, including that she stole property by taking items from a shelf in a supermarket and placing them in her shopping cart without intending to pay for them. Contrary to defendant's present contention, "[t]he Court of Appeals has 'never held that a plea is effective only if a defendant acknowledges committing every element of the pleaded-to offense, or provides a factual exposition for each element of the pleaded-to offense'" (People v Diaz, 154 AD3d 440, 441 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1104 [2018], quoting People v Seeber, 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005][citations omitted]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and she expressly requests that this Court affirm her conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to Criminal Court for further proceedings, dismissal is not warranted and therefore, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n 1; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: May 13, 2020