Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jonathan Svetkey, J.), rendered February 19, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlawful manufacture, distribution or sale of a synthetic cannabinoid, and imposing sentence. PER CURIAM Judgment of conviction (Jonathan Svetkey, J.), rendered February 19, 2019, affirmed. In view of defendant’s knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the pleading standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of unlawful manufacture, distribution or sale of a synthetic cannabinoid (see Administrative Code of City of NY §10-203[a][1]). The instrument alleged that while co-defendant (Spann) was being placed under arrest for the sale of synthetic cannabinoids, he dropped a “black plastic bag” to the ground. The instrument further alleged that defendant picked up the bag and went into a pizza shop, where police recovered the black plastic bag and “a separate zip lock bag” containing synthetic cannabinoid from defendant’s person. The “possess with intent to sell” element of the offense (Administrative Code §10-203[a][1]) was satisfied by allegations that “24 bundles of synthetic cannabinoids were recovered from “defendant Harris’s person,” thereby triggering the statutory presumption of intent to sell arising from possession of “ten or more packets, individual containers or other separate units” of such substance (see Administrative Code §10-203[b]). The record establishes that defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382-383 [2015]; People v. Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054-1055 [2015]). While defendant had been diagnosed with epilepsy and prescribed medication for this condition, there is no basis in the record to support his present contention that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his defense (see People v. Morris, 147 AD3d 1083 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1035 [2017]). To the contrary, defendant’s responses at the plea proceeding were appropriate, and did not indicate that he was incapacitated (see People v. Harden, 175 AD3d 613 [2019]). In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm the conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Because 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. Dated: October 5, 2020
