People v. Taylor, 65 A.D.2d 805 (1978)
A defendant’s guilty plea generally waives the right to appeal non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings, even if the defendant attempts to reserve the right to appeal those issues.
Summary
The defendant, Taylor, appealed his conviction for assault in the second degree, arguing that the indictment should have been dismissed because his wife, the complainant, was not advised of the option to pursue family offense proceedings in Family Court, as required by the Family Court Act. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order upholding the conviction. The Court held that Taylor’s guilty plea waived his right to raise this issue on appeal because the alleged failure to advise his wife of alternative forums did not constitute a jurisdictional defect, and a defendant cannot unilaterally reserve the right to appeal issues waived by a guilty plea.
Facts
Taylor was charged with assault in the second degree. The charge stemmed from an incident involving his wife. Prior to entering a guilty plea, Taylor moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his wife, as the complainant, had not been advised of the procedures available for instituting family offense proceedings in Family Court, as mandated by former subdivision 2 of section 812 of the Family Court Act. The trial court denied the motion.
Procedural History
The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree. He then appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the failure to advise a complainant of the option to pursue family offense proceedings in Family Court, as required by the Family Court Act, constitutes a jurisdictional defect that survives a guilty plea.
2. Whether a defendant can unilaterally reserve the right to appeal an issue that is otherwise waived by a guilty plea.
Holding
1. No, because the provisions of the Family Court Act regarding advising complainants of family offense proceedings do not affect the court’s fundamental jurisdiction to hear the case.
2. No, because a defendant cannot unilaterally avoid the consequences of a guilty plea by attempting to reserve the right to appeal issues that are otherwise waived.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Family Court Act’s requirement to advise complainants of family offense proceedings does not pertain to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction or authority. The Court stated, “At most they consist of a threshold, statutory directive with respect to procedures to be followed for access to the Family Court or to the criminal courts, unrelated to the judicial competence of those courts.” The statute aims to inform complainants of their right to choose the court of prosecution, a right the defendant cannot control. The Court emphasized that nothing in the statute suggested that failure to give the advice would strip either Family Court or the criminal courts of jurisdiction.
Regarding the attempted reservation of rights, the Court stated, “A defendant cannot by a unilateral recital of an intention or desire to preserve a legal contention evade what would otherwise be the consequences of his guilty plea.” The Court clarified that even if defense counsel had explicitly reserved the right to appeal the issue, it would not have been effective because a guilty plea generally waives all non-jurisdictional defects. The court considered it likely that the defense counsel was merely acknowledging the standard rule that jurisdictional challenges are always preserved, even after a guilty plea.