Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Daniel Chun, J.), rendered November 11, 2008.
People v DeJesus (Richard)
Decided on January 20, 2012
Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of resisting arrest.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.
Defendant was charged, in a single accusatory instrument, with resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30), attempted petit larceny (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.25) and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 ). After his oral application to dismiss the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient was denied, defendant pleaded guilty to resisting arrest in satisfaction of all the charges. On appeal, defendant argues that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient insofar as it charged him with resisting arrest because it failed to allege facts that would establish, if true, that the arrest had been authorized.
Although the accusatory instrument in this case was a misdemeanor complaint, as conceded by the People, it must be evaluated under the standards that apply to an information (see CPL 100.40 ) because defendant did not waive his right to be prosecuted by misdemeanor information (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 ).
An information alleging resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) must, in
the factual part, set forth allegations sufficient to establish, if
true, that defendant's arrest was lawful (People v Jensen, 86 NY2d
248, 253 ; see also People v Lucas, 15 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY
Slip Op 50943[U] [App Term, 9th
& 10th Jud Dists 2007]). In this case, the information needed to allege sufficient facts
from which it could be rationally inferred that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant
for either attempted petit larceny or disorderly conduct (see People v Jensen, 86 NY2d 248, 253 ).
With respect to the arrest for attempted petit larceny, the accusatory instrument alleges that defendant was observed attempting to open the driver's side door of a car which did not belong to him and which defendant did not have the owner's permission to access. "A person is guilty of petit larceny when he steals property" (Penal Law § 155.25). To constitute an attempt, an act must "carry the project forward within dangerous proximity to the criminal end to be attained" (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 300 , quoting People v Werblow, 241 NY 55 ). We find that it is not rational to infer, solely from the act of attempting to open the car door, that defendant had come within dangerous proximity of stealing either the car or some unidentified item in the car. Consequently, the accusatory instrument failed to allege facts from which it could be inferred that the arrest for attempted petit larceny was authorized (see Jensen, 86 NY2d 248).
With respect to the arrest for disorderly conduct, the accusatory instrument alleges that defendant yelled at the arresting officer and used obscene language prior to the arrest. However, it did not allege that the dispute extended beyond those two individuals. Consequently, the accusatory instrument failed to allege facts from which it could be inferred that the arrest for disorderly conduct was authorized (see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 ; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 576 ).
Since the accusatory instrument did not include allegations establishing, if true, the necessary element of resisting arrest that the underlying arrest was authorized, and jurisdictional defects in an information are non-waivable (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 ), the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed as ...