PEOPLE v. RIVERA (2020)

Judgment of conviction (Bahaati E. Pitt, J.) rendered September 17, 2018, affirmed.

Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea to the charges of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a]) and driving while impaired by alcohol (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]), in exchange for a promised sentence of a conditional discharge, was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (see People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d 375 [2015]; People v. Sougou, 26 N.Y.3d 1052 [2015]). Defendant also executed a form acknowledging receipt of a written copy of the terms of the conditional discharge and its expiration date (see CPL 410.10[1]; People v. Valentin, 66 Misc. 3d 136[A], 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50044[U][App. Term, 1st Dept. 2020]) and his contention that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of the length of the conditional discharge is unavailing (see People v. Kidd, 105 A.D.3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1005 [2013]; People v. Kripanidhi, 59 Misc. 3d 148[A], 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 938 [2018]).

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 e.g., People v. Murray, 46 Misc. 3d 136[A], 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 51891[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2014]; see also People v. Conceicao, 26 N.Y.3d at 385 n. 1), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.

Per Curiam.

All concur.