Opinion
570781/01.
Decided February 25, 2004.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Bronx County, rendered June 11, 2001 (David Stadtmauer, J.) convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction rendered June 11, 2001 (David Stadtmauer, J.) affirmed.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
Review of defendant's present contention that the court did not conform to the procedural requirements of CPL 180.50 is foreclosed by operation of her guilty plea ( see, People v. Perez, NYLJ, July 19, 2001, at 18, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept], lv denied 97 NY2d 642; see also, People v. Shewbarran, 188 Misc 2d 595, 597 [Parness, J., concurring] [2001]), which served to waive all nonjurisdictional issues ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 238 AD2d 150, lv denied 90 NY2d 897). In any event, inasmuch as CPL 180.50 applies to the reduction of a charge in a felony complaint to a non-felony offense, it has no application in this case where the felony drug possession charges contained in the accusatory instrument were dismissed, not reduced ( see, People v. Perez, supra). We reach these conclusions despite the People's concession on appeal that the court's purported noncompliance with the provisions of CPL 180.50 warrants vacatur of the guilty plea, since we are not bound by erroneous concessions of legal principles ( see, People v. Berrios, 28 NY2d 364, 366-367). Further, defendant's current challenge to the adequacy of the plea colloquy is both unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Lopez, 71 NY2d 662) and without merit ( see, People v. Winbush, 199 AD2d 447, 448).
We note that even were a basis to vacate the guilty plea disclosed in the record, defendant has indicated in her appellate reply brief that she seeks such relief only in the event that we were to dismiss the accusatory instrument in its entirety based upon her completion of the sentence. Such an "unusual result" ( People v. Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 918) would be unwarranted, however, in view of the nature of the drug possession charges underlying this prosecution ( cf., People v. Burwell, 53 NY2d 849, 851).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.