In People v. Kalin (12 NY3d 225 [2009] the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction. During a search of the vehicle, nine bags of heroin and a bag of marijuana were recovered, as well as a "marijuana pipe." At his arraignment, Mr. Kalin pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law 220.03), and received a sentence of time served. (12 NY3d at 227, 906 NE2d 381, 878 NYS2d 653.) The Appellate Term reversed Mr. Kalin's conviction on the basis that the trial court "did not advise defendant that he had the right to be prosecuted by a misdemeanor information rather than a misdemeanor complaint." (Id. at 228, 906 NE2d 381, 878 NYS2d 653.) However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term, and reinstated the conviction. After discussing the defendant's right to waive prosecution by information, the Court noted that "in the absence of [an express waiver], the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument . . . must be evaluated under the standards that apply to an information." (Id.) In People v. Kalin, the defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law 220.03) without having been advised by the court of his right to be prosecuted by information. In Kalin, the Court of Appeals held that, under such circumstances, a guilty plea should result in a forfeiture of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument by operation of law, so long as the instrument, whether intended to be a misdemeanor complaint or not, satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of an information, including that it sufficiently plead each element of the charged crime (People v. Kalin,12 NY3d 225, 2009 NY Slip Op 02446). In Kalin, the Court observed that the statements of the complainant officer in the accusatory instrument were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of an information, where "the assertions were enough to inform defendant that the substances seized were heroin and marijuana - the officer had been trained to identify those drugs and their packaging, he had experience with narcotics as a law enforcement officer and his observations of the substances, along with the presence of paraphernalia, supplied the basis on which he drew the conclusion that he had discovered heroin and marijuana" (id. at 4).