From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grays

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Oct 16, 2014
121 A.D.3d 1178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

104621.

10-16-2014

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerry D. GRAYS, Appellant.

Donna C. Chin, Ithaca, for appellant, and appellant pro se. John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F. Getman of counsel), for respondent.


Donna C. Chin, Ithaca, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F. Getman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., STEIN, GARRY, EGAN JR. and CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

CLARK, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), rendered August 5, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of conspiracy in the second degree.

In early October 2010, defendant—then serving a sentence in the Otsego County jail on a contempt conviction stemming from various violations of an order of protection in favor of his ex-girlfriend, Jeanette Hamm—allegedly told a fellow prisoner that he desired to have Hamm murdered. Defendant's block-mate discussed the matter with prison officials, and the Otsego County Sheriff's Department began an investigation. As part of the investigation, an undercover police officer posing as a potential assassin talked with defendant on the phone and met with him at the jail. Defendant was arrested shortly thereafter and charged by indictment with the crime of conspiracy in the second degree. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged (see Penal Law §§ 105.15, 105.20 ). County Court ultimately sentenced defendant to 8 ? to 25 years in prison and imposed a lengthy order of protection against defendant and in favor of Hamm. Defendant now appeals.

As the People concede, the indictment is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed inasmuch as it failed to charge the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy as required by Penal Law § 105.20 (see CPL 200.50 [7 ][a]; 200.70[2][a]; People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 103, 905 N.Y.S.2d 542, 931 N.E.2d 526 [2010] ; People v. Boula, 106 A.D.3d 1371, 1371–1372, 966 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1040, 972 N.Y.S.2d 538, 995 N.E.2d 854 [2013], People v. McCoy, 89 A.D.3d 1218, 1221, 933 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2011], lvs. denied 18 N.Y.3d 959, 960, 944 N.Y.S.2d 488, 967 N.E.2d 713 [2012] ). In light of our determination that the indictment must be dismissed, a review of defendant's remaining contentions is unnecessary.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed, without prejudice to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to another grand jury.

PETERS, P.J., STEIN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Grays

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Oct 16, 2014
121 A.D.3d 1178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Grays

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JERRY D. GRAYS…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 16, 2014

Citations

121 A.D.3d 1178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
994 N.Y.S.2d 451
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7017

Citing Cases

People v. Placido

Moreover, the People's contention that defendant consented to the amendment is directly contradicted by the…