Opinion
No. 2011NY088210.
2012-05-9
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Jeffrey L. WILLIAMS, Defendant.
Lisa Donchak, Esq., Kathleen Hardy, Esq, for Defendants.
MICHELLE A. ARMSTRONG, J.
The defendant is charged by Information with Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree (PL § 140.15), Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree (PL § 140.10(e), and Trespass (PL § 140.05). The following facts are alleged in the Information:
Deponent states that while on patrol inside the above location, a New York City Housing Authority apartment building where people reside, deponent observed the defendant inside the stairwell of the dwelling beyond the vestibule and that said location is beyond a posted sign which read, “No Trespassing” and “Tenants and their Guests Only”.
Deponent further states that defendant is not a tenant in that the defendant stated in substance to deponent: NO I DO NOT LIVE HERE. Deponent further states that defendant is not an invited guest in that the defendant was unable to provide the identity of the resident of the above-mentioned apartment building of whom the defendant was an invited guest.
Deponent further states that deponent is a member of the New York Police Department and as such is an agent of this dwelling and defendant did not have permission or authority to enter or remain in the area in which deponent was found.
The defendant now moves to dismiss the Information as Facially Insufficient pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30(1)(a) and 170.35. Specifically, the defendant posits that CPL § 60.50, which requires corroboration of confessions, applies to misdemeanor informations. As such, defendant contends that the instant accusatory instrument is fatally defective because it is devoid of any corroborative factual allegations, other than defendant's own admissions, tending to show that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in a residential building; and therefore must be dismissed. The People did not submit papers in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated herein, the defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of facial insufficiency is denied in its entirety.
ANALYSIS:
To be sufficient on its face, a misdemeanor information must contain non-hearsay factual allegations providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged; and which establish, if true, every element of the offense(s) charged (CPL §§ 100.15[3]; 100.40[1][b] and [c]. The reasonable cause standard is met by allegations of an evidentiary nature that disclose facts or circumstances which, collectively, bear such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense(s) was committed and that defendant committed it (CPL § 70.10[2] ). An information which fails to satisfy this prima facie case requirement is jurisdictionally defective. (CPL §§ 170.30 and 170.35; People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133 [1987];People v. Dumas, 68 NY3d 729 [1986] ).
This court recognizes that a prima facie case requirement is not the same as the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, required at trial. People v. Henderson, 92 N.Y.2d 677, 680 (1999).In reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency, “[s]o long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense; [it] should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading.” People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360 (2000). Moreover, the Court of Appeals, in People v.. Allen (99 N.Y.2d 378, 385 [1998] ), held that at the pleading stage, all that is required are factual allegations that are sufficiently evidentiary in character and which tend to support the charges. In assessing the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the People. However, the court is not required to abandon common sense or the significance of the alleged conduct. See People v. Gibble, 2 Misc.3d. 510, 512 (Crim Ct. N.Y. County 2003).
This Court finds the Information is facially sufficient to establish reasonable cause that the defendant committed the crimes charged. For the reasons indicated below defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED in its entirety.
CPL § 60.50 provides that a person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed. On May 8, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals laid to rest the issue of the applicability of CPL § 60.50 to misdemeanor accusatory instruments.
In People v. Suber (––– N.E.2d ––––, 2012 WL 1581972(N.Y.), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03573), the Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether a defendant's admissions must be corroborated in order to satisfy the prima facie case requirement for an information. In a split decision, binding on this Court, the Suber Court held that “corroboration of a defendant's admission is not a component of the prima facie case requirement for an information.” Id. In that case, the defendant, having previously been designated a level-three sex offender, was charged by Information with two Class A misdemeanors pursuant to the Corrections Law. Specifically, Defendant Suber failed to personally verify his home addresses as required with local law enforcement every 90 days in violation of Correction Laws § 168–f (3); and failed to register as a sex offender within 10 days of changing his address in violation of Correction Laws § 168–f (4). The only factual allegations contained in the accusatory instrument to establish Defendant Suber's violation of the above referenced charges were based on defendant's own admissions to a police officer of his prior residences.
Defendant Suber moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument as fatally defective urging that the misdemeanor information failed to contain any facts to corroborate defendant's admissions regarding his prior residences as required by CPL § 60.50. The Suber court reasoned that the corroboration of confession requirement of CPL § 60.50 applies to “convictions,” and has no bearing on the adequacy of charging instruments that provide the bases for such prosecutions unless specifically authorized by statute. Id. Moreover, the Suber Court determined that since the legislature specifically excluded the corroboration of confession requirement from the statute governing misdemeanor informations (see CPL § 100.40[1] ), then “the absence of allegations in the information corroborating defendant's statements does not affect the jurisdictional validity of the information.”
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss on ground of facial insufficiency is denied in its entirety.
The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the court.