People v. Head
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law; whether an indictment was jurisdictionally defective because its factual allegations described a lesser drug-possession offense than the felony offense cited in the indictment.
County Court accepted defendant's guilty plea to Penal Law § 220.16 (12) [criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree when a person knowingly and unlawfully possesses a narcotic drug weighing one-half ounce or more] and, after defendant violated plea conditions, sentenced him as a second felony offender to 10 years in prison plus three years of postrelease supervision.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of conviction and dismissed the indictment, without prejudice to the People to re-present appropriate charges to another grand jury.
Although the indictment cited Penal Law § 220.16 (12), its factual allegations stated only that defendant possessed narcotics weighing one-eighth ounce or more, which matches Penal Law § 220.09 (1) [criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree when a person knowingly and unlawfully possesses a narcotic drug weighing one-eighth ounce or more]. That contradiction negated an essential element of the charged third-degree offense and made the indictment jurisdictionally defective.
Background
Defendant was charged in a one-count indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Penal Law § 220.16 (12) [criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree when a person knowingly and unlawfully possesses a narcotic drug weighing one-half ounce or more]. He pleaded guilty as charged in satisfaction of that indictment and other pending charges and waived his right to appeal. After he failed to comply with the plea agreement, County Court imposed an enhanced sentence as a second felony offender. On appeal, defendant argued that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because, while it cited the third-degree possession statute, the factual recitation alleged possession of only one-eighth ounce or more of narcotics.
Lower Court Decision
County Court rendered judgment convicting defendant on his guilty plea to third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment and three years of postrelease supervision after finding he violated the plea agreement.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that a jurisdictional defect in an indictment survives both a guilty plea and an appeal waiver. The court found that the indictment's factual allegations described only fourth-degree possession under Penal Law § 220.09 (1) [criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree when a person knowingly and unlawfully possesses a narcotic drug weighing one-eighth ounce or more], not the charged third-degree offense. Because the factual recitation effectively negated the one-half-ounce element required by Penal Law § 220.16 (12), the indictment failed to validly charge the particular crime stated. Defendant's plea allocution could not cure that defect. The court therefore reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment without prejudice to re-presentment.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that an indictment is jurisdictionally defective when its specific factual allegations contradict and negate an essential element of the offense it purports to charge. Mere citation to the statute is ordinarily sufficient, but not when the indictment also includes allegations that describe different conduct or a lesser crime. The case also confirms that such a defect is not forfeited by a guilty plea or an appeal waiver.
In New York criminal cases, if an indictment cites a felony statute but alleges facts that amount only to a lesser offense, the indictment may be void for jurisdictional defect, and a conviction based on a guilty plea cannot stand.