Opinion
6785 6785A 6785B 6785C 6785D Ind. 662/14 Dkt. 1532C/13 10667C/13 5456C/14 33011C/14
06-07-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlos POLANCO, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alexandra Ferlise of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Kristian D. Amundsen of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alexandra Ferlise of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Kristian D. Amundsen of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Kapnick, Singh, JJ.
Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jeanette Rodriguez–Morick, J.), rendered March 4, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of assault in the third degree, resisting arrest, theft of services, criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree and attempted assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.
The record establishes that defendant's pleas were knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant did not make any statements that cast significant doubt on the voluntariness of the pleas or require further inquiry (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995] ). In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of all accusatory instruments rather than vacatur of the pleas, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm the convictions if it does not grant a dismissal. Because we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see e.g. People v. Teron, 139 A.D.3d 450, 29 N.Y.S.3d 175 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
We have considered and rejected defendant's claim that two of the misdemeanor accusatory instruments to which he pleaded guilty were jurisdictionally defective (see generally People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738, 944 N.Y.S.2d 715, 967 N.E.2d 1160 [2012] ). The nonpayment element of theft of services was sufficiently charged by way of allegations explaining the procedure for riding a select bus and stating that defendant rode such a bus without being able to produce a payment receipt, which effectively constituted failure to pay. The authorized arrest element of resisting arrest was sufficiently charged by way of allegations establishing probable cause to arrest defendant for menacing and other offenses arising out of his physically and verbally threatening conduct in a courthouse.