From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rancka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 28, 1993

Appeal from the Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, plea vacated and superior court information dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant executed a waiver of indictment and consented to be prosecuted on a superior court information that charged him with burglary in the second degree. The judgment of conviction was entered upon defendant's guilty plea to the crime as charged in that information.

Defendant's conviction must be reversed. The record does not reflect that, when defendant waived indictment and consented to be prosecuted on a superior court information, he had been held for Grand Jury action with respect to the offense charged in that information, as required by N Y Constitution, article I, § 6 and CPL 195.10 (1) (a). Therefore, defendant's waiver was ineffective and the superior court information on which he was prosecuted was jurisdictionally defective (see, People v Johnson, 187 A.D.2d 990; see also, People v Zanghi, 79 N.Y.2d 815; People v Boston, 75 N.Y.2d 585). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find each one lacking in merit.


Summaries of

People v. Rancka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Rancka

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH D. RANCKA…

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

Date published: May 28, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 651

Citing Cases

People v. Sherman

Defendant appeals, contending that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective. Defendant…

People v. Horton

Defendant's conviction must be reversed. There is no dispute that the superior court information upon which…