| People v McCray (Michael) |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 51932(U) [21 Misc 3d 127(A)] |
| Decided on September 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Division of Supreme Court, Bronx
County (George Villegas, J.), rendered April 25, 2007, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of
criminal trespass in the second and third degrees, trespass, menacing in the second and third
degrees, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, disorderly conduct
and resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (George Villegas, J.),
rendered April 25, 2007, affirmed.
The misdemeanor complaint sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the underlying criminal trespass charges by alleging, inter alia, that within the space of one hour defendant was twice observed inside the lobby of a "clean halls" apartment building that was marked by "no trespassing" signs and equipped with a locked entrance door and "intercom/buzzer system"; that defendant initially stated that he was on his way to visit an unnamed "friend", who, defendant admitted, lived at a different address; and that defendant was otherwise unable to explain his presence inside the building. These allegations were sufficient to demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that defendant had "knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully" in the building (see People v Babarcich, 166 AD2d 655 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 1019 [1990]; People v Johnson, 8 Misc 3d 137[A] [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 853 [2005]).
Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenge to the validity of the plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Defendant's utterances, viewed in their entirety, cast no significant doubt on the voluntariness of his plea, his understanding of the nature of the charges against him or his guilt. [*2]
Inasmuch as defendant has already served his sentence, issues relating to sentencing are academic.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: September 24, 2008