People v Jenkins (Tyriek)

[*1] People v Jenkins (Tyriek) 2020 NY Slip Op 50762(U) Decided on June 25, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 25, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Torres, JJ.
19-090

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Tyriek Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Nicholas J. Iacovetta, J.) rendered April 4, 2018, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Nicholas J. Iacovetta, J.) rendered April 4, 2018, affirmed.

Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea to the charge of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law § 195.05), in exchange for a promised sentence of a conditional discharge, was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. At the plea proceeding, which was conducted two months after arraignment, defendant, represented by counsel, waived specific constitutional rights, including his rights to a trial, to remain silent and to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and gave an unequivocal affirmative response to the court's inquiry whether he obstructed governmental administration by interfering with a police officer who was trying to execute a search warrant (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Defendant's contention that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of the length of the conditional discharge is unavailing (see People v Kidd, 105 AD3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013]; People v Kripanidhi, 59 Misc 3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 938 [2018]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n 1).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: June 25, 2020