PER CURIAM.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Robert H. Straus, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at sentencing), rendered September 13, 2012, reversed, on the law, and matter remanded for further proceedings on the accusatory instrument.
As the People now concede, defendant's conviction of second-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle must be vacated since the plea record lacks the requisite “affirming showing” that defendant understood and waived his Boykin rights (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 [1969] ; People v. Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359 [2013] ). Even though defendant has served his jail sentence, we find the dismissal remedy that he now seeks to be unwarranted in the circumstances of this case, since “for penological purposes it is relevant whether defendant committed the crime” (People v. Allen, 39 N.Y.2d 916, 918 [1976] ). Should defendant commit another similar traffic misdemeanor, “it is important that the court be able to impose an enhanced sentence” (People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 38 [1985], affd 65 N.Y.2d 837 [1985] ; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[2][a][1] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.