People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 541 (1995)

A defendant held for grand jury action on a felony complaint charging a Class A felony cannot waive indictment and plead to a superior court information, even if the information charges only lesser offenses.

Summary

Ford was initially charged with second-degree murder (a Class A felony). To facilitate a plea bargain, the prosecution filed a superior court information charging him with lesser offenses. Ford waived indictment and pleaded guilty to the information. The New York Court of Appeals held that this waiver was invalid. The court emphasized that the waiver of indictment is only permissible when the defendant is *not* initially held for grand jury action on a Class A felony charge. This case underscores the strict limitations on waiving indictment in New York, ensuring adherence to constitutional protections.

Facts

Ford was arrested and charged via felony complaint with second-degree murder and weapons charges related to a fatal shooting in 1993.

He was held pending grand jury action on these charges.

Ford and the prosecution negotiated a plea agreement where he would plead guilty to manslaughter and a separate, unrelated crime in exchange for concurrent sentences.

To execute this, the prosecution filed a superior court information charging Ford with manslaughter and criminal use of a firearm.

Ford waived indictment and pleaded guilty to the charges in the information.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding the waiver of indictment invalid.

The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant, initially charged with a Class A felony in a felony complaint and held for grand jury action, can validly waive indictment and plead guilty to a superior court information charging only lesser offenses.

Holding

No, because the waiver of indictment is impermissible when the defendant is held for grand jury action on a felony complaint that includes a Class A felony charge; the subsequent filing of a superior court information with only lesser charges does not cure this defect.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the constitutional requirement of indictment by a grand jury for capital or infamous crimes. While a constitutional amendment created an exception allowing waiver of indictment, this exception is narrowly defined. CPL 195.10(1) permits waiver of indictment only when “the defendant is not charged with a class A felony.” The court reasoned that this provision refers to the charges in the *original* felony complaint upon which the defendant is held for grand jury action. The court distinguished this case from People v. D’Amico, where the waiver was valid because the defendant was being held on a *new* felony complaint without a Class A felony charge.

The Court stated: “The waiver procedure is triggered by the defendant being held for Grand Jury action on charges contained in a felony complaint (CPL 195.10 [1] [a]) and it is in reference to those charges that its availability must be measured”.

The court rejected the People’s argument that focusing on the initial charge was overly formalistic, stating that the prosecution could have sought an indictment on the lesser charges or filed a superseding felony complaint. The court emphasized that constitutional protections should be satisfied rather than evaded for expediency.

The court further noted that the waiver provision must be interpreted consistently with the limitations in the constitutional authorization. Since the original felony complaint included a Class A felony (murder), the waiver of indictment was unauthorized, regardless of the charges in the subsequent superior court information.