PEOPLE v. OUIKHLEF (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Richard A. Tsai, J.), rendered January 23, 2019, affirmed.

Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid at least with respect to the charged offenses of making graffiti (see Penal Law § 145.60[2]) and possession of graffiti instruments (see Penal Law § 145.65). The instrument recited that, in front of 310 West Broadway, a police officer “observed the defendant affix a sticker depicting the word ‘Maxime’ [defendant's first name] on a New York City light pole,” that the officer “took a black marker from the defendant's” pocket, as well as “three additional stickers depicting the word ‘Maxime’ ” from defendant's pocket; that based on the officer's training and experience, he determined that the recovered items “are of a type commonly used to make graffiti;” that the officer was a “custodian of the property;” and that defendant did not have permission or authority to “place any stickers on,” or otherwise “deface the property.” These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]).

Since at least one of the charged misdemeanor offenses was jurisdictionally valid, the court had jurisdiction to accept defendant's plea to the uncharged lesser offense of disorderly conduct (see People v Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 117-119 [2003]).

Per Curiam.

All concur.