People v. Burca

DECISION & ORDER

*1 Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), rendered January 5, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law §511 [1] [a]).ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, defendant’s guilty plea is vacated and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the accusatory instrument is dismissed.At his arraignment, defendant waived his right to be prosecuted by an information and pleaded guilty to aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law §511 [1] [a]). On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient in that it failed to allege that he knew, or should have known, that his driver’s license had been suspended. Defendant further argues that his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.Defendant’s contention regarding the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument with respect to the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree is jurisdictional and, therefore, may be raised on appeal even though defendant did not raise this contention in the Criminal Court (see People v. Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]; People v. Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 229 [2009]; People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569 [2004]). However, a hearsay defect in an accusatory instrument is not jurisdictional and is forfeited by a guilty plea (see