People v Nevins (Elizabeth)

[*1] People v Nevins (Elizabeth) 2020 NY Slip Op 51393(U) Decided on November 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 20, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Cooper, J.P., Higgitt, McShan, JJ.
570257/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Elizabeth Nevins, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.), rendered March 11, 2019, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.), rendered March 11, 2019, affirmed.

The misdemeanor complaint was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant possessed synthetic cannabinoids, a Schedule 1 controlled substance (see Penal Law § 220.03; Public Health Law § 3306[g]; People v Arroyo, 69 Misc 3d 130[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51165[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]; see also Matter of Sahairah J. (Rosemarie R.), 135 AD3d 452 [2016]). The instrument recited that the deponent police officer observed defendant holding a cigarette containing "a shredded dried plant-like material with a distinctive odor," and that the officer concluded that the substance was "synthetic cannabinoid/synthetic marijuana (K2)," based on his training and experience as a New York City police officer, which included "training in the recognition of controlled substances, marijuana, and their packaging" (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 231-232 [2009]). Where, as here, "the defendant has waived prosecution by information (and therefore has assented to the more lenient reasonable cause standard), these legal and factual allegations are sufficient to particularize the crime charged and protect against a constitutional double jeopardy violation" (People v Thiam, 34 NY3d 1040, 1044 [2019, DiFiore, Ch.J., concurring]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 20, 2020