THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. ELVIN QUINONES DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2011)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:  On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of identity theft in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.80[3] ), defendant contends that the superior court information is jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as it fails to specify the “class D felony or higher level crime” that he committed or attempted to commit (id.).   We reject that contention.  “A superior court information is subject to the same rules as an indictment ․, 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” (People v. Price, 234 A.D.2d 978, 978, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 862;  see People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 278).   Here, the superior court information charging defendant with identity theft in the first degree in the language of the statute is legally sufficient (see People v. Fitzgerald, 45 N.Y.2d 574, 580, rearg. denied 46 N.Y.2d 837;  People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 598–599).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court