| People v Griswold |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03687 [95 AD3d 1454] |
| May 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| 2—The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vAdam Griswold, Appellant. |
—[*1] Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.),rendered May 2, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sexual abusein the first degree and criminal sexual act in the second degree (two counts).
Defendant was charged in two separate indictments with 48 counts of various crimesinvolving the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter—crimes that allegedly began when thechild was seven years old and continued for the next nine years. In March 2011, and in fullsatisfaction of the foregoing indictments and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty toone count of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of criminal sexual act in the seconddegree and waived his right to appeal. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement,defendant thereafter was sentenced to consecutive five-year prison terms on each count followedby 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Although defendant's claim that the indictments were jurisdictionally defective survives bothhis guilty plea and his unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Martinez, 79 AD3d1378, 1379 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 798 [2011]; People v Place, 50 AD3d 1313,1314 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 740 [2008]), we find it to be lacking in merit. "Whentime is not an essential element of an offense, the indictment . . . may allege thetime in approximate terms, as [*2]long as it sets forth a timeinterval which reasonably informs the defendant of the nature of the accusations to enable thepreparation of a defense" (People vPorlier, 55 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];see People v Roman, 43 AD3d1282, 1283 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1009 [2007]; People v Lanfair, 18 AD3d 1032,1033 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 790 [2005]). Here, given the tender age of the victimwhen the abuse began, the frequency with which the abuse occurred and "the familialrelationship between the victim and defendant," the time frames disclosed—expressed aseither months and years or seasons—were "sufficiently particularized to permit defendantto prepare a defense" (People v Porlier, 55 AD3d at 1060; see People v Roman,43 AD3d at 1283).
Similarly, "where an indictment count incorporates by reference the statutory provisionapplicable to the crime intended to be charged, it has been repeatedly held that this is sufficient toapprise the defendant of the charge and, therefore, renders the count jurisdictionally valid" (People v Brown, 75 AD3d 655,656 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Place, 50 AD3dat 1314). That standard was met here and, therefore, defendant was provided with fair notice ofthe charges against him (see People vBinns, 82 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2011]; People v Place, 50 AD3d at 1314).Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Peters, J.P., Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.