Appeal by defendant form a judgment of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (R. McGaw, J.), rendered May 12, 2004, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was initially charged by felony complaint with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). In addition thereto, in separate accusatory instruments, defendant was charged with unlawful possession of marihuana (Penal Law § 221.05), exposure of a person (Penal Law § 240.01) and a violation of Poughkeepsie City Ordinance § 14-5 (2). Following reduction of the felony complaint to the misdemeanor of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), defendant entered a plea of guilty to same in satisfaction of all charges. Defendant contends on appeal that the reduction of the felony complaint was improper since the court failed to make a proper inquiry as to whether the facts and evidence provide a basis for charging the non-felony offense (see CPL 180.50).

An attempt to reduce a felony complaint to a non-felony offense is ineffective unless the reduction is done in accordance with CPL 180.50 (see People v Yolles, 92 NY2d 960 [1998]; People v Grune, 175 Misc 2d 281 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1997]; People v Jones, 151 Misc 2d 582 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 921 [1992]; People v [*2]Minor, 144 Misc 2d 846 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 666 [1989]). In People v Yolles (92 NY2d 960, supra), the Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to CPL 180.50, a reduction from a felony complaint to a non-felony offense may only occur if the court conducts an inquiry as to whether the facts and evidence provide a basis for charging the non-felony offense and, after such an inquiry, the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the non-felony offense. This court has previously held that "[e]ven though the defendant expressly consented to an oral reduction of the felony complaint, such a reduction was invalid and the defect nonwaivable" (People v Grune, 175 Misc 2d at 281-282; see People v Minor, 144 Misc 2d at 848 ["an attempted reduction of a felony complaint, even though acquiesced to by defendant, not done pursuant to the requirements of CPL 180.50 is invalid and of no effect and the felony complaint remains pending"]; see also People v Jones, 151 Misc 2d 582, supra).

In the case at bar, the court inquired of the assistant district attorney whether there was an evidentiary and factual basis for the reduction. The assistant district attorney noted that based upon his review of the police reports, the accusatory instrument and his discussion with defense counsel, there existed a factual basis for the reduction. In addition, the court, at the time it made the necessary notations in the felony complaint indicating its reduction, reviewed the felony complaint, which set forth an adequate basis in the facts therein to support the misdemeanor charge. Thus, under the circumstances herein, the court made sufficient inquiry so as to satisfy the requirements of CPL 180.50 (see People v Liburb, 182 Misc 2d 356 [1999]).
Decision Date: March 25, 2005