People v. Konieczny, 2 N.Y.3d 569 (2004)
A defendant’s guilty plea to criminal contempt generally forfeits the right to challenge the underlying order of protection’s validity on appeal, unless the challenge implicates the court’s jurisdiction or a constitutional right.
Summary
Konieczny pleaded guilty to attempted criminal contempt for violating an order of protection. On appeal, he argued the order was invalid because the protected party wasn’t a victim or witness in the underlying bad check case, thus the order was improperly issued under CPL 530.13(4). The New York Court of Appeals held that his guilty plea forfeited this non-jurisdictional challenge. The Court emphasized that guilty pleas mark the end of litigation, and only jurisdictional defects or fundamental constitutional rights survive such a plea. While cautioning against misuse of protective orders, the Court affirmed the conviction, finding the accusatory instrument sufficient on its face.
Facts
Defendant pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct related to a bad check charge. Subsequently, an order of protection was issued directing him to stay away from Gary M. Although compliance with the order was a condition of his discharge, the order didn’t specify Gary M.’s connection to the bad check charge. One month later, police found Defendant at Gary M.’s residence, violating the order. He was charged with criminal contempt in the second degree. Defendant then pleaded guilty to attempted criminal contempt. Only on appeal did Defendant argue Gary M. wasn’t a victim or witness in the bad check case, rendering the protective order invalid.
Procedural History
Defendant pleaded guilty in City Court to attempted criminal contempt. On appeal to County Court, he argued the invalidity of the order of protection, which was rejected because the guilty plea forfeited the claim. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to determine if the challenge to the order survived the guilty plea.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant’s guilty plea to attempted criminal contempt forfeits the right to challenge the validity of the underlying order of protection on the grounds that the protected party was not a victim or witness in the underlying criminal action, when that challenge is raised for the first time on appeal.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s claim that the order of protection was invalid under CPL 530.13(4) is a statutory violation, not a jurisdictional defect or violation of a fundamental constitutional right, and therefore it did not survive his guilty plea. The information and supporting documents adequately pleaded that the defendant violated a court order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that a guilty plea generally ends a criminal case, precluding further litigation on non-jurisdictional defects. Exceptions exist for jurisdictional matters or fundamental constitutional rights. The Court acknowledged concerns about misusing CPL 530.13 to issue protective orders for parties unrelated to the underlying prosecution. However, the Court determined that the defendant’s challenge to the order’s validity didn’t implicate the court’s jurisdiction. The misdemeanor information adequately alleged a violation of a court order, as the order of protection was facially valid and attached to the information. The Court cited People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354 (2000), stating that an accusatory instrument should be given a reasonable reading and external factors cannot be used to create jurisdictional defects not evident from the face of the document. The Court distinguished People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133 (1987), where the information failed to address an element of the offense. The Court noted that orders of protection are filed in a statewide registry and are enforced by a myriad of law enforcement agencies and courts throughout the state. For these reasons the court held, “Having pleaded guilty to attempted criminal contempt on a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument, defendant conceded every element of the offense, including the lawfulness of the order of protection, and forfeited his claim that the order violated CPL 530.13 (4).”