Opinion
07-12-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Hugo CARDONA–VELASQUEZ, also known as Hugo De Jes Cardona–Velasquez, appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant. Robert Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, NY (Melissa Lynch of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Robert Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, NY (Melissa Lynch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Reitz, J.), rendered May 24, 2016, convicting him of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he did not validly waive his right to be prosecuted by an indictment is not precluded by his plea of guilty or his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Boston, 75 N.Y.2d 585, 589 n., 555 N.Y.S.2d 27, 554 N.E.2d 64 ; People v. Sze, 113 A.D.3d 795, 978 N.Y.S.2d 879 ; People v. Davenport, 106 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 964 N.Y.S.2d 759 ; People v. Libby, 246 A.D.2d 669, 670, 668 N.Y.S.2d 397 ). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, his waiver of his right to prosecution by indictment was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Donigan, 20 A.D.3d 487, 797 N.Y.S.2d 763 ). The defendant signed a valid written waiver of indictment after it was explained to him with the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter in the presence of his attorney (see NY Const., art. I, § 6 ; CPL 195.20 ; People v. Surico, 138 A.D.3d 899, 28 N.Y.S.3d 330 ; People v. Davis, 84 A.D.3d 1645, 1646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 364 ). During the plea allocution, the defendant acknowledged that he was waiving his right to a hearing before the grand jury and his right to testify before the grand jury (see People v. Davis, 84 A.D.3d at 1646, 923 N.Y.S.2d 364 ; People v. Gould, 242 A.D.2d 583, 584, 662 N.Y.S.2d 520 ). The waiver of indictment was also signed by defense counsel and an assistant district attorney, and the County Court approved the waiver after finding that it complied with CPL 195.10 and 195.20 (see CPL 195.30 ; People v. Hill, 269 A.D.2d 404, 405, 702 N.Y.S.2d 390 ; People v. McIntyre, 178 A.D.2d 559, 577 N.Y.S.2d 466 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.