You are here: / / WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF...
,

WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.

The Second Department determined the waiver of indictment, which included an A-1 felony, was invalid. The guilty plea, the waiver of the right to appeal and/or the failure to preserve the error did not preclude appeal of the issue:

CPL 195.10 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by superior court information when . . . the defendant is not charged with a class A felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.” Thus, the Court of Appeals has held: “[W]hen an accused is held for Grand Jury action upon a felony complaint that charges a class A felony . . . a waiver of indictment with respect to that felony complaint is unauthorized” … . Here, the felony complaint charged the defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. That crime is a class A-I felony (see Penal Law § 220.21), which is punishable by an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.00[2][a]). Accordingly, the defendant could not waive indictment and agree to be prosecuted by superior court information … . People v Janelle,2017 NY Slip Op 00188, 2nd Dept 1-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/INDICTMENT, WAIVER OF (WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)

You might also like
DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AND ALLEGEDLY SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DENIED RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN REPLY; THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED; IN ADDITION, THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE THE LETTER WAS MAILED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS NO WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED WORDS AND ACTIONS SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE (1) STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE REVERSE MORTGAGE, (2) DEFAULT AND (3) NOTICE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS CALLING DEFENDANTS CON ARTISTS, SCAMMERS AND THIEVES WERE DEFAMATORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING DEFAMATION PROPERLY DENIED; THE LAW OF DEFAMATION CONCISELY AND COMPLETELY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT, WHICH IS MERELY ADVISORY AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE REFEREE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS’ PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT SANTIAGO’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ICE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND SANTIAGO’S NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS; DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE... MOTHER’S MOTION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN G...