PEOPLE v. PHILBERT (2019)

Judgment of conviction (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at sentencing), rendered March 14, 2013, affirmed.

The misdemeanor complaint was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.20). Defendant's possession of the forged instruments (see Penal Law § 170.00[7] ) - New Jersey and Pennsylvania driver's licenses - was satisfied by allegations that these out-of-state licenses contained a hologram that was different from the hologram on genuine New Jersey and Pennsylvania driver's licenses; the “peeling” laminate on the licenses was different from the laminate on a genuine license; and the licenses bore a photo of the defendant “but a name different from that of the defendant's true identity.” Furthermore, the fact that the licenses bear defendant's photograph provides a sound basis for the inference that defendant had knowledge of and actively participated in manufacturing the false identification documents (see People v. Rodriguez, 17 NY3d 486, 490 [2011] ). A jury could also infer that defendant had the intent to defraud, since “there was no reason for defendant to knowingly possess [such] false identity documents unless [s]he intended to present them as real, i.e., to defraud or deceive another” (People v. Rodriguez, 71 AD3d 450, 453 [2010], affd 17 NY3d 486).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.