PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered April 15, 2016, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the validity of his consent to have the matter adjudicated by a Judicial Hearing Officer [JHO] is both unpreserved and without merit. Given that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the signature on the JHO consent form is not defendant's, and defendant does not now claim otherwise, this Court will “presume that it was [defendant's signature]” on the form (People v. Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 22 n 1 [2009] ). Moreover, after defendant, his attorney and the prosecutor signed the standardized JHO consent form, defendant entered into a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea without objection to the authority or jurisdiction of the JHO (see People v. Abdrabelnaby, 58 Misc 3d 16 [2017] lv denied 30 NY3d 1113 [2018] ).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see e.g. People v. Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.