People v. Price

• Decision Date: 30 December 1996
• Citation: 234 A.D.2d 978,652 N.Y.S.2d 453
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Glenn PRICE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 453

652 N.Y.S.2d 453

234 A.D.2d 978

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Glenn PRICE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Dec. 30, 1996.

Mary Ann Bliznik, Batavia, for Appellant.

Robert C. Noonan by Lawrence Friedman, Batavia, for Respondent.

Before GREEN, J.P., and LAWTON, FALLON, CALLAHAN and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

After waiving indictment, defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). The superior court information alleged that at a certain time and place defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in the Oil Spout Garage with intent to commit a crime therein. We reject the contention of defendant that the felony complaint is legally insufficient. The felony complaint, together with the supporting depositions and defendant's statement, established that defendant, without permission, smashed the window of the Oil Spout Garage, crawled inside, remained on the premises for a brief time and fled the scene on a bicycle. That information provides reasonable cause to believe that defendant unlawfully entered the Oil Spout Garage with intent to commit a crime therein (see, CPL 100.40[4][b] ). The intent to commit a crime when unlawfully entering premises may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the breaking and entering (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071; People v. Grant, 162 A.D.2d 1021, 1022, 559 N.Y.S.2d 56; People v. Vivenzio, 103 A.D.2d 1044, 478 N.Y.S.2d 438).

Defendant's contention that the superior court information is jurisdictionally defective is also without merit. A superior court information is subject to the same rules as an indictment (CPL 200.15), and an indictment that states no more than the bare elements of the crime charged and, in effect, parrots the Penal Law is legally sufficient; the defendant may discover the particulars of the crime charged by requesting a bill of particulars (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 278, 425 N.Y.S.2d 288, 401 N.E.2d 398; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 598-599, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656; People v. Fitzgerald, 45 N.Y.2d 574, 412 N.Y.S.2d 102, 384 N.E.2d 649, rearg. denied 46 N.Y.2d 837, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1055, 386 N.E.2d 1105). Here, the superior court information recites all of the requisite elements of burglary in the third degree. Because defendant's contention is related to the sufficiency of the factual allegations, as opposed to a failure to allege the material elements of the crime, that contention does not survive defendant's guilty plea (see, People v. Fields, 208 A.D.2d 1050, 617 N.Y.S.2d 583, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 935, 621 N.Y.S.2d 532, 645 N.E.2d 1232).

We reject the further...