PEOPLE v. DAZA (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered June 15, 2016, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][a] ), the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. Allegations that “the key was in the ignition, the engine was running and defendant was behind the wheel” satisfied the operation element of the offense (see People v. Alamo, 34 NY2d 453, 458–459 [1974]; People v. Almanzar, 113 AD3d 527 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1059 [2014] ).

We perceive no basis for reducing the fine. Defendant received the precise sentence for which he had bargained, which was within the permissible statutory range (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1][b] ). Although the defendant now claims that he is indigent, he never sought relief from the fine by way of a CPL § 420.10(5) motion for resentencing (see People v. Toledo, 101 AD3d 571 [2012] ), lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013] ), and indeed, has paid the fine.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.