Opinion
1123 KA 17–01409
11-15-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ryan LAWS, Defendant–Appellant.
RYAN LAWS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. MICHAEL D. CALARCO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
RYAN LAWS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MICHAEL D. CALARCO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea and waiver of indictment are vacated, the superior court information is dismissed and the matter is remitted to Wayne County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the third degree ( Penal Law § 160.05 ) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (§ 170.25) upon his plea of guilty to a superior court information (SCI). On appeal, defendant contends that the written waiver of indictment failed to comply with CPL 195.20 inasmuch as it did not state the approximate time that he committed each offense. We agree, and we therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea and waiver of indictment, dismiss the SCI, and remit the matter to County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45 (see generally People v. Walker, 148 A.D.3d 1570, 1570, 51 N.Y.S.3d 287 [4th Dept. 2017] ).
A written waiver of indictment must be executed in strict compliance with the requirements of CPL 195.20 (see People v. Vaughn, 173 A.D.3d 1260, 1261, 102 N.Y.S.3d 751 [3d Dept. 2019] ; People v. Edwards, 171 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 97 N.Y.S.3d 538 [3d Dept. 2019] ), which in relevant part provides that such a waiver shall contain the "approximate time ... of each offense to be charged in the [SCI]" ( CPL 195.20 ). The People correctly concede that the written waiver of indictment failed to contain the approximate time of each offense and, because strict compliance with CPL 195.20 is required, we agree with defendant that the waiver was defective (see People v. Colon–Colon, 169 A.D.3d 187, 193, 92 N.Y.S.3d 520 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 975, 101 N.Y.S.3d 266, 124 N.E.3d 755 [2019] ). Contrary to the People's contention, even if we assume, arguendo, that we are able to read an SCI in conjunction with a written waiver of indictment in order to cure a defect therein, that would not cure the defect in the written waiver in this case because the SCI does not state the approximate time of each offense (see generally Vaughn, 173 A.D.3d at 1261, 102 N.Y.S.3d 751 ).
Based on our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.