From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McKenzie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 9, 1995

Appeal from the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.).


On October 5, 1994, two accusatory instruments were filed against defendant; one charging him with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and the other charging him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. After waiving indictment, defendant entered a plea of guilty to a single charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31) contained in a superior court information. On appeal, defendant contends that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective because the waiver of indictment ( see, CPL 195.20) states that defendant will be charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree instead of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Our review of the record supports the People's position that this variation was solely due to a typographical error in the waiver of indictment and defendant was on notice of the true crime to be charged ( cf., People v Ray, 71 N.Y.2d 849, 850). Significantly, the waiver of indictment specifically refers to Penal Law § 220.31, the correct numeric citation for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Thus, both the waiver of indictment and superior court information both correctly allege a violation of Penal Law § 220.31. Notably, although the wrong statutory provision was mentioned early in the arraignment proceedings before County Court, defendant was thereafter specifically told by the court that he was being charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Moreover, although his attorney asked that the superior court information be amended to reflect the correct date, no mention was made of any error in the actual crime charged. Accordingly, we conclude that any error made was purely ministerial and nonprejudicial to defendant.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. McKenzie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. McKenzie

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JEROME McKENZIE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 9, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 652

Citing Cases

People v. Waid

The record of the plea proceeding establishes that the court was satisfied with the sufficiency of the waiver…

People v. Sterling

Defendant argues that the waiver of indictment was ineffective because it inaccurately denominated the…