PEOPLE v. LORENZO (2022)

Judgment of conviction (Jay L. Weiner, J.), rendered October 29, 2019, affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]). Defendant pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of criminal contempt in the second degree (see Penal Law § 215.50[3]) in full satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging, inter alia, two class E felonies; defendant personally confirmed that no one was forcing him to plead guilty and that he had enough time to speak to his attorney; and that he understood that he was giving up his rights to a jury trial, to confront the People's witnesses and to either testify or to remain silent. The court was not required to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into whether defendant's ability to enter the plea was impaired by drugs or alcohol. There was nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's ability to make a decision to enter a valid plea was impaired in any way, regardless of what was said on other occasions (see People v Praileau, 110 AD3d 415 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1202 [2014]; People v Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]; People v Royster, 40 AD3d 885 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 881 [2007]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is a 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 a dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penologicial purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n; People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur