People v. Smalls

• Decision Date: 15 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 197,197
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis P. SMALLS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

26 N.Y.3d 1064
44 N.E.3d 209
23 N.Y.S.3d 134
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 09188

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Dennis P. SMALLS, Appellant.

No. 197

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Marianne Stracquadanio, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Karen Swiger of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

44 N.E.3d 210

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On this appeal, the main issue is whether a misdemeanor information that

44 N.E.3d 211

describes the circumstances surrounding the defendant's possession of alleged drug residue, the appearance of the residue, and the officer's experience in identifying controlled substances sets forth a prima facie case of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03 ). We hold that, under the particular circumstances of this case, such allegations were minimally sufficient to plead a valid charge of seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance.

By a misdemeanor information, the People charged defendant Dennis P. Smalls with criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of a knife (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 10–133[b] ). After his arraignment on the information, defendant moved to dismiss the information on facial sufficiency grounds, and the court denied his motion. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance in full satisfaction of the information. In exchange for his plea, defendant received a sentence of 30 days in jail, which was set to run concurrently with his sentence upon an unrelated misdemeanor charge and with his punishment for violating the terms of his parole in a prior felony case.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence, rejecting defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the drug-related charge to which he had pleaded guilty (see People v. Smalls, 116 A.D.3d 474, 474, 982 N.Y.S.2d 886 [1st Dept.2014] ). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (23 N.Y.3d 1067, 994 N.Y.S.2d 326, 18 N.E.3d 1147 [2014] ).

“ ‘A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution’ ” (People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 103, 905 N.Y.S.2d 542, 931 N.E.2d 526 [2010], quoting People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 99, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 365 N.E.2d 872 [1977] ). To meet the jurisdictional standard for facial sufficiency, a misdemeanor complaint “need only set forth facts that establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense” (People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 522, 992 N.Y.S.2d 672, 16 N.E.3d 1150 [2014] ; see People v. Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 228, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381 [2009] ; People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 [1986] ). “In addition to [satisfying] the reasonable cause requirement, an information,” unlike a complaint, “must also set forth ‘nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof’ ” (Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d at 228–229, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381, quoting People v....