People v Pettigrew (Julius)

[*1] People v Pettigrew (Julius) 2020 NY Slip Op 50701(U) Decided on June 18, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 18, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Torres, JJ.
570136/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Julius Pettigrew, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Eileen Koretz, J.H.O.), rendered January 9, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of facilitating unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Eileen Koretz, J.H.O.), rendered January 9, 2019, affirmed.

Our review of the record establishes that defendant's guilty 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]). In satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging, inter alia, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, a misdemeanor, defendant pleaded guilty to the uncharged offense of facilitating unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, a traffic infraction, in exchange for a sentence of a $200 fine. Defendant admitted his guilt to the offense to which he was pleading guilty, personally confirmed that he was pleading voluntarily and after consultation with counsel, and understood that he waived his right to trial. Thus, the record as a whole establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights, despite the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3dat 1054; People v Simmons, 138 AD3d 520 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1139 [2016]) and nothing in the plea allocution minutes casts doubt on his guilt (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725 [1995]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his 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: June 18, 2020