Opinion
168 KA 15-01446
02-07-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory S. HOYT, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree ( Penal Law § 215.50 [3] ), defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed because City Court (Castro, J.) failed to comply strictly with the requirements of CPL 180.50(3)(a)(iii), and thus the felony complaint was not validly converted to a misdemeanor complaint upon which he could plead guilty. We affirm.
Defendant, by his guilty plea, "forfeited any claim that [the court] failed to [follow the procedural steps] required by CPL 180.50" ( People v. Hunter, 5 N.Y.3d 750, 751, 801 N.Y.S.2d 246, 834 N.E.2d 1256 [2005] ). In reaching that conclusion, we reject defendant's contention that the court's failure to follow the dictates of that statute is a jurisdictional defect that we must consider notwithstanding his plea and waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656 [1978] ). We conclude that the complaint is not jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as it passes the test for facial sufficiency, which is simply whether the accusatory instrument supplied defendant with "sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy" ( People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 103, 905 N.Y.S.2d 542, 931 N.E.2d 526 [2010] ; see People v. Aragon, 28 N.Y.3d 125, 128, 42 N.Y.S.3d 646, 65 N.E.3d 675 [2016] ; cf. generally People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 135–136, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 511 N.E.2d 71 [1987] ). Here, any error in the amended complaint with respect to the title of the accusatory instrument or the full name of the charge "is a technical defect rather than a jurisdictional defect vital to the sufficiency of the [misdemeanor complaint] or the guilty plea entered thereto" ( People v. Cox, 275 A.D.2d 924, 925, 713 N.Y.S.2d 708 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 962, 722 N.Y.S.2d 479, 745 N.E.2d 399 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Because the misdemeanor complaint is not jurisdictionally defective, defendant's challenges to it "are forfeited by defendant's plea of guilty ..., and in any event the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses those nonjurisdictional challenges" ( People v. Rossborough, 101 A.D.3d 1775, 1775–1776, 956 N.Y.S.2d 389 [4th Dept. 2012] ).