From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perkins

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Oct 5, 2017
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51327 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)

Opinion

570737/15

10-05-2017

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy Perkins, Defendant-Appellant.


PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered June 7, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered June 7, 2015, reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, the count of the accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree is dismissed, the remaining count of the instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings.

The record fails to support the conclusion that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, because the court accepted the plea at arraignment without addressing any of the rights defendant was waiving, (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383—85 [2015].

We also agree with defendant that the count of the accusatory instrument charging criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 221.10) was jurisdictionally defective, since it failed to set forth sufficient nonconclusory allegations to support the claim that the marijuana was "open to public view" (see People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 746-748 [2012]). The factual portion of the instrument merely alleges that police "took a large ziplock bag" of marijuana "from the inside of defendant's pants pocket," but contained no allegations that the officer was able to and did see the marijuana prior to taking it from defendant's pocket.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that notwithstanding that defendant served his sentence, a penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to Criminal Court for further proceedings on the remaining count of the instrument (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 379 n 1 [2015]; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 05, 2017


Summaries of

People v. Perkins

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Oct 5, 2017
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51327 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)
Case details for

People v. Perkins

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy Perkins…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Date published: Oct 5, 2017

Citations

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51327 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)
71 N.Y.S.3d 923

Citing Cases

People v. Santagata

The Court stated that the "open to public view" requirement "ensures that a pedestrian walking on a public…