| People v King |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 03151 [184 AD3d 909] |
| June 4, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Brent C. King Jr., Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Keith F. Schockmel of counsel), forappellant.
Jason M. Carusone, District Attorney, Lake George (Rebecca Nealon of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.),rendered September 6, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant waived indictment and was charged in a superior court information (hereinafterSCI) with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He pleaded guilty to thiscrime, in satisfaction of the SCI and other uncharged crimes, and also waived his right to appeal.In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offenderto six years in prison, followed by three years of postrelease supervision, to run consecutively toa sentence that was previously imposed on an unrelated crime. Defendant appeals.
Initially, defendant contends that the waiver of indictment is invalid and the SCI isjurisdictionally defective for failure to set forth the approximate time of the offense contrary tothe requirements of CPL 195.20. Notwithstanding this deficiency, it has been held that theomission of such nonelemental factual information does not amount to a jurisdictional defect(see People v Lang, 34 NY3d 545, 568-569 [2019]; People v Edwards, 181 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2020]; People v Elric YY., 179 AD3d1304, 1305 [2020]; People vShindler, 179 AD3d 1306, 1306-1307 [2020]). Indeed, defendant was provided adequatenotice of the charge based upon reading the waiver of indictment and the SCI, together with thefelony complaint, which set forth the approximate time of the crime and the specific location(see People v Lang, 34 NY3d at 569-570). Notably, the record does not disclose thatdefendant raised any objection before County Court to the sufficiency of the waiver of indictmentor the SCI, or that he requested a bill of particulars. Accordingly, the omission constitutes anonjurisdictional defect that was forfeited by defendant's guilty plea (see People vEdwards, 181 AD3d at 1055; People v Elric YY., 179 AD3d at 1305; People vShindler, 179 AD3d at 1307).
Defendant also asserts that his appeal waiver was invalid. We disagree. The record disclosesthat County Court advised defendant of the trial-related rights that he was forfeiting by pleadingguilty and explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct (see People v Couse, 178 AD3d1207, 1207-1208 [2019]). Defendant then executed a written waiver in open court afterconferring with counsel and expressed that he understood its ramifications. The written waiverwas comprehensive, extending to the severity of the sentence (see People v Ramos, 179 AD3d1395, 1396 [2020]). Accordingly, defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waivedhis right to appeal and he is, therefore, precluded from challenging the severity of the sentence(see People v Drake, 179 AD3d1221, 1222 [2020]; People vLoffler, 178 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2019]).
Garry, P.J., Mulvey, Devine and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.