People v Cruz (Jaime)

[*1] People v Cruz (Jaime) 2020 NY Slip Op 51185(U) Decided on October 9, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 9, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
570138/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jaime Cruz, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anne J. Swern, J.), rendered February 8, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Anne J. Swern, J.), rendered February 8, 2019, affirmed.

The information, charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03) was not jurisdictionally defective. Defendant's possession of synthetic cannabinoids, a Schedule I controlled substance (see Penal Law § 220.00[5]; Public Health Law § 3306[g]; see also Matter of Sahairah J. (Rosemarie R.), 135 AD3d 452 [2016]), was established by allegations that the police recovered two cigarettes "containing synthetic cannabinoids commonly known as K2" after defendant dropped one cigarette from his hand and the other fell from his pocket, and that the officer concluded that the substance was synthetic cannabinoids (K2) based on his professional training as a police officer in the identification of synthetic cannabinoids, his prior experience as a police officer making drug arrests, the odor emanating from the substance, and his observation of the packaging, "which is characteristic of synthetic cannabinoids (K2)" (see People v Miller, 65 Misc 3d 159[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 52006[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1161 [2020]; see also People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 231-232 [2009]).

Defendant's present contention that the contents of the cigarettes were not illegal was a matter to be raised as a defense at trial, not by insistence that the accusatory instrument was defective (see People v Smalls, 26 NY3d 1064, 1067 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 9, 2020