People v Cintron (David)

[*1] People v Cintron (David) 2020 NY Slip Op 51436(U) Decided on November 27, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Cooper, J.P., Higgitt, McShan, JJ.
19-382

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

David Cintron, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael Gaffey, J.), rendered February 26, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Michael Gaffey, J.), rendered February 26, 2019, affirmed.

In full satisfaction of two separate dockets, including the underlying accusatory instrument charging, inter alia, assault in the third degree (see Penal Law § 120.00), attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110, 120.00), and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[1]), defendant pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20), a violation.

Since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, we assess the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument based on the standard applicable to an information (see People v Hatton, 26 NY3d 364, 368 [2015]). So viewed, the information was jurisdictionally valid at least with respect to the charge of attempted third-degree assault, since it contained "nonconclusory factual allegations that, if assumed to be true, address[ed] each element of the crime charged, thereby affording reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed that offense" (People v Middleton, 35 NY3d 952, 954 [2020], quoting People v Matthew P., 26 NY3d 332, 335-336 [2015]). At the pleading stage, defendant's intent to cause physical injury, i.e., "substantial pain," a term which simply means "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; see Penal Law § 10.00[9]), could be readily inferred from allegations that he struck one Randy Anderson in the face with a closed fist, causing bruising to the left side of Anderson's face (see Matter of Edward H., 61 AD3d 473, 473 [2009]). Since at least one of the charged misdemeanor offenses was jurisdictionally valid, the court had jurisdiction to accept defendant's plea to the uncharged lesser offense of disorderly conduct (see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 117-119 [2003]).

The plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant confirmed that he was pleading guilty voluntarily, that he had the opportunity to discuss the plea with his attorney, and [*2]that he understood he was giving up various rights, including his right to a trial, to call witnesses, to question the People's witnesses, and to testify on his own behalf (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]). Since defendant pleaded guilty to an uncharged lesser offense, no factual basis for the plea was necessary (see People v Johnson, 23 NY3d 973, 975 [2014]). Defendant, when initially asked whether he acted disorderly, responded "as far as being defensive, yes." The plea court then directed defendant to confer with counsel, after which defendant indicated that he had nothing further to say. Under these circumstances, defendant's vague "defensive" comment did not cast significant doubt on the plea, and a further inquiry was unnecessary (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]; People v Bermudez, 228 AD2d 237 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 919 [1996]; People v Alford, 167 AD2d 232 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 835 [1991]). In any event, even assuming that further inquiry was warranted, 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 dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 27, 2020