People v. Stevenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stevenson

107 A.D.3d 1576, 966 N.Y.S.2d 717

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 14, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.3d 1576 (People v. Stevenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Stevenson, 107 A.D.3d 1576, 966 N.Y.S.2d 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered September 28, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated, the superior court information is dismissed and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). Defendant was charged by felony complaint with the forcible rape of one individual, but after arraignment and his waiver of indictment, County Court granted the People’s motion to amend the superior court information (SCI) to charge defendant with the forcible rape of a different individual. The court accepted defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of forcible rape with respect to the second individual.

As the People correctly concede, the SCI is jurisdictionally defective, and we therefore reverse the judgment of conviction. We note that defendant’s contention that the SCI is jurisdiction-ally defective does not require preservation, and that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Cieslewicz, 45 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2007]; People v Edwards, 39 AD3d 875, 876-877 [2007]). “[T]he designation of a[n] [individual] in the [SCI] different from the [individual] named in the felony complaint renders the crime contained in the information a different crime entirely” (Edwards, 39 AD3d [1577]*1577at 876). Thus, defendant was not held for action of a grand jury on the charge in the SCI inasmuch as “it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint” (Cieslewicz, 45 AD3d at 1345 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally CPL 195.20). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered September 28, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated, the superior court information is dismissed and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). Defendant was charged by felony complaint with the forcible rape of one individual, but after arraignment and his waiver of indictment, County Court granted the People’s motion to amend the superior court information (SCI) to charge defendant with the forcible rape of a different individual. The court accepted defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of forcible rape with respect to the second individual.

As the People correctly concede, the SCI is jurisdictionally defective, and we therefore reverse the judgment of conviction. We note that defendant’s contention that the SCI is jurisdiction-ally defective does not require preservation, and that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Cieslewicz, 45 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2007]; People v Edwards, 39 AD3d 875, 876-877 [2007]). “[T]he designation of a[n] [individual] in the [SCI] different from the [individual] named in the felony complaint renders the crime contained in the information a different crime entirely” (Edwards, 39 AD3d [1577]*1577at 876). Thus, defendant was not held for action of a grand jury on the charge in the SCI inasmuch as “it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint” (Cieslewicz, 45 AD3d at 1345 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally CPL 195.20). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.3d 1576, 966 N.Y.S.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stevenson-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack