From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Manrique

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 21, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50991 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)

Opinion

09-21-2023

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christian Manrique, Defendant-Appellant.


Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DECSION

PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, James, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), rendered June 14, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), rendered June 14, 2019, affirmed.

Defendant's claim that his guilty plea to fourth-degree criminal mischief (see Penal Law § 145.00) was invalid because he was not informed of the duration of the conditional discharge is unpreserved (see People v Torres, 37 N.Y.3d 256, 269 [2021]; brief for defendant-appellant in Torres, supra, available at 2020 WL 10965076, * 29; People v Bush, 38 N.Y.3d 66 [2022]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375 [2015]; People v Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052 [2015]). At the plea colloquy, defendant acknowledged that he would be sentenced to a "conditional discharge, the condition being that [he] pay restitution in the amount of $1,500"; and he executed a form acknowledging the "one year" duration of the conditional discharge (see People v Kidd, 105 A.D.3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1005 [2013]; People v Kripanidhi, 59 Misc.3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 938 [2018]; CPL 410.10[1]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 385 n), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm on this basis as well.


Summaries of

People v. Manrique

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 21, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50991 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)
Case details for

People v. Manrique

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christian Manrique…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 21, 2023

Citations

2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50991 (N.Y. App. Term 2023)