| People v Vaughn |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 04500 [173 AD3d 1260] |
| June 6, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel C. Vaughn, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (Elizabeth Healy of counsel), forrespondent.
Garry, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (McDermott,J.), rendered September 29, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofassault in the second degree.
Defendant waived indictment and was charged in a superior court information (hereinafterSCI) with assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the fourth degree. He thereafter pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree in fullsatisfaction of the charges and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced him inaccordance with the plea agreement to 4
At oral argument, defendant raised his contention that the waiver of indictment and the SCIfailed to set forth a time of the offense and are thus jurisdictionally defective. Initially, a claim oflack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time (see generally People v Nicometi, 12 NY2d428, 431 [1963]), and such challenge is not precluded by defendant's guilty plea or his waiver ofthe right to appeal (see People vHulstrunk, 163 AD3d 1177, 1178 n [2018]; People v Seals, 135 AD3d 985, 987 [2016]). A waiver ofindictment must be executed in strict compliance with the requirements of CPL 195.20, whichprovides, as pertinent here, that it shall include the "approximate time . . . of eachoffense to be charged in the [SCI]" (seePeople v Sterling, 27 AD3d 950, 952 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 898 [2006]).Although "courts may read both [the SCI and the waiver of indictment] together, as a singledocument, to satisfy the requirements of CPL 195.20," it is undisputed that here neithercontained any reference to the time of the offense (People v Busch-Scardino, 166 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2018]). Further,this is not a case "where the time of the offense is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable so as toexcuse the absence of such information" (People v Titus, 171 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2019] [internal quotationmarks and citation omitted]; compare People v Watt, 84 NY2d 948, 950-951 [1994]).Indeed, a specific time was provided in the felony complaint.
We are thus constrained to reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the SCI (see People v Edwards, 171 AD3d1402, 1402 [2019]; People v Titus, 171 AD3d at 1256; People v Colon-Colon, 169 AD3d187, 192 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 975 [2019]; People v Busch-Scardino,166 AD3d at 1316). Further proceedings, if warranted, may be had on the felony complaint in theappropriate court (see People v Seals, 135 AD3d at 987). Our determination rendersdefendant's remaining arguments academic.
Mulvey, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, onthe law, and superior court information dismissed.