Although he pleaded guilty to "disorderly conduct," Yanheni S. asked the Appellate Term, First Department, to reverse his conviction on the grounds that the underlying paperwork--the accusatory instrument--which claimed that he was guilty of "patronizing a prostitute in the third degree," was legally deficient.
And, interestingly, the AT1 agreed that the form was "bereft of any evidentiary facts." Not only was there no detail of any sexual conduct, a physical description of the woman who supposedly agreed to the "sex-for-money arrangement," wasn't even supplied.
Because Yanheni was denied "sufficient notice" of the crime to satisfy "the demands of due process and double jeopardy," the conviction was ultimately reversed.
Cops need to be more revealing.
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use the following link: People v. S.