PEOPLE v. YORKE (2022)

Judgment of conviction (James G. Clynes, J.), rendered January 27, 2020, affirmed.

Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]). In satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging identity theft in the third degree (see Penal Law § 190.78) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 165.40), defendant agreed to plead guilty to third degree identity theft, in exchange for a conditional discharge that required him to pay restitution in the amount of $88.22. In response to the court's questioning, defendant stated that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily, that he had an opportunity to discuss his guilty plea with counsel, and acknowledged the constitutional rights he was waiving including the right to trial, to remain silent and to call and question witnesses. Defendant also executed a form acknowledging that he was being sentenced to a “one year conditional discharge” and had received a written copy of the terms of the conditional discharge and its expiration date (see CPL 410.10[1]; see also People v Bush, 38 NY3d 66 [2022]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur