People of the State of New York v. Precila Smith (also known as Precilla Aviles)
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure — validity of waiver of indictment under New York CPL 195.20 [statute requiring that a waiver of indictment be evidenced by a written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of counsel, with the district attorney’s consent endorsed].
The Supreme Court, Bronx County accepted the waiver of indictment and guilty pleas and imposed an aggregate sentence of five years’ imprisonment plus five years’ postrelease supervision.
Reversal of the judgments; dismissal of the Superior Court Information (SCI) No. 48/2019; vacatur of the guilty plea under Indictment No. 279/2020; remand for further proceedings.
The record did not demonstrate compliance with CPL 195.20 because the waiver was not shown to have been signed in open court in the presence of counsel, the waiver and the court’s compliance order were undated, and there was no on-the-record colloquy. This jurisdictional defect required dismissal of the SCI; the later plea, premised on a concurrent sentence with the invalid SCI sentence, had to be vacated.
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty under Superior Court Information (SCI) No. 48/2019 to robbery in the third degree and petit larceny, and under Indictment No. 279/2020 to robbery in the first degree. The agreed sentence was an aggregate five years’ imprisonment with five years’ postrelease supervision, with the later sentence to run concurrently with the sentence under the SCI. The record contained a written indictment waiver and a court order purporting to confirm compliance with CPL 195.20, but neither document was dated; the plea minutes contained no colloquy about the waiver, and the court did not confirm on the record that defendant signed the waiver in open court.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (at pleas and sentencing), accepted the written waiver of indictment in SCI No. 48/2019, found compliance with CPL 195.10 and 195.20, took defendant’s guilty pleas in both matters, and imposed an aggregate five-year term with five years’ postrelease supervision.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed. It held that the waiver of indictment under CPL 195.20 was invalid because the record, viewed as a whole, failed to show that defendant signed the waiver in open court in the presence of counsel; the waiver and the court’s compliance order were undated, and there was no on-the-record colloquy. This noncompliance is a jurisdictional defect requiring reversal and dismissal of the SCI. Because defendant’s later plea to first-degree robbery was induced by the promise that its sentence would run concurrently with the now-invalid SCI sentence, that plea was vacated and the matter remanded.
Legal Significance
Strict, on-the-record compliance with CPL 195.20 is indispensable; deficiencies are jurisdictional, survive guilty pleas and appeal waivers, and mandate dismissal of the SCI. Additionally, when a subsequent plea is contingent upon concurrency with a sentence from a conviction that is later set aside, the subsequent plea must be vacated.
For a valid indictment waiver, ensure a dated written waiver signed by the defendant in open court in counsel’s presence, with the district attorney’s consent endorsed and a clear on-the-record colloquy. Absent this, the SCI and any plea package dependent on it are vulnerable to reversal and vacatur.