New York Law Review

Tag: CPL 170.20

  • People v. Sinistaj, 81 N.Y.2d 232 (1993): Criminal Court Jurisdiction and Grand Jury Indictments

    People v. Sinistaj, 81 N.Y.2d 232 (1993)

    A local criminal court is divested of jurisdiction over a misdemeanor charge when the charge is presented to a grand jury within a designated adjournment period, and either an indictment or dismissal results, which occurs when the indictment is filed with a superior court.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of when a criminal court is divested of jurisdiction under CPL 170.20(2)(a) when a case is presented to a grand jury. The defendant was arrested and charged with misdemeanors. The Assistant District Attorney (ADA) sought an adjournment to present the case to the Grand Jury, which voted to indict the defendant on felony charges before the adjourned date. On the adjourned date, the defendant pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. The indictment was filed after the plea. The Court held that Criminal Court was divested of jurisdiction when the indictment resulted (filing), prior to the guilty plea.

    Facts

    Defendant was arrested on December 1, 1989, and charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass and criminal mischief.

    On December 4, 1989, the ADA obtained an adjournment to December 8, 1989, to seek a felony indictment from the Grand Jury.

    On December 7, 1989, the Grand Jury voted to indict defendant for second-degree burglary.

    On December 8, 1989, defendant pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor trespass charge in Criminal Court, with the People’s consent.

    On December 13, 1989, the burglary indictment was filed in Supreme Court.

    Procedural History

    Defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree in Supreme Court, Kings County, after his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds was denied.

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Criminal Court was divested of jurisdiction pursuant to CPL 170.20 when the ADA requested an adjournment to present the case to the Grand Jury, and an indictment resulted prior to the defendant’s guilty plea in Criminal Court.

    Holding

    Yes, because Criminal Court was divested of jurisdiction pursuant to CPL 170.20 when the indictment was filed, which occurred before the guilty plea. The Court interpreted the statute to mean that divestiture occurs when an indictment “results,” which is upon filing with the superior court.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court focused on interpreting CPL 170.20 (2) (a), which states that a local criminal court is divested of jurisdiction when a charge is presented to a grand jury within the designated period and either an indictment or dismissal of such charge results. The Court emphasized that the word “results” accommodates either an indictment or a dismissal. An indictment, as defined in the CPL 200.10, is “a written accusation by a grand jury, filed with a superior court.” The Court reasoned that an indictment “results” when it is filed, not merely when the grand jury votes to indict. The majority held that because the indictment was filed with the Supreme Court prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea in criminal court, that the criminal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept the plea. Chief Judge Kaye dissented, arguing that Criminal Court jurisdiction is divested only when an indictment is filed, and the majority’s interpretation condones sloppy practice and enlarges the statutory definition of an indictment. She cited People v. Cade, 74 N.Y.2d 410, 416, noting that the case held there is no strict time limit for filing the indictment, but does not hold that an indictment is valid without being filed.

  • People v. Bark, 66 N.Y.2d 170 (1985): Limits on Defendant’s Right to Plead Guilty

    People v. Bark, 66 N.Y.2d 170 (1985)

    A defendant does not have an unconditional right to plead guilty to a misdemeanor complaint in local criminal court when the prosecution requests an adjournment to present the charge to a Grand Jury.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s right to plead guilty under CPL 220.10(2) is not absolute when the prosecution seeks to present the charge to a Grand Jury. The defendant attempted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor complaint before the District Attorney could present the case to a Grand Jury. The Court reasoned that CPL 340.20(1), which applies article 220 to non-indictment accusatory instruments, does so only “to the extent that they can be so applied.” The Court found that applying CPL 220.10(2) in this instance would nullify CPL 170.20(2), which allows the District Attorney to present the charge to a Grand Jury before a guilty plea is entered. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to allow the adjournment.

    Facts

    The defendant was charged via a misdemeanor complaint in local criminal court. Prior to any indictment, the defendant attempted to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge. The prosecution requested an adjournment under CPL 170.20(2) to present the charge against the defendant to a Grand Jury, seeking a potential indictment for a higher charge.

    Procedural History

    The trial court ruled that CPL 220.10 does not supersede CPL 170.20 and granted the adjournment. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether CPL 220.10(2) affords a defendant an unconditional right to plead guilty in a local criminal court to a charge lodged in a misdemeanor complaint, even when the prosecution has requested an adjournment under CPL 170.20(2) to present the charge to a Grand Jury.

    Holding

    No, because CPL 340.20(1) applies the plea provisions of article 220 only to the extent that they do not override other specific provisions of law, such as CPL 170.20(2), which grants the District Attorney the right to present the charge to a Grand Jury before a guilty plea is entered.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that CPL 340.20(1), which makes the plea provisions of article 220 applicable to instruments other than indictments, does so only “to the extent that they can be so applied.” The court emphasized that CPL 170.20(2) unequivocally allows the District Attorney to adjourn proceedings to present the charge to a Grand Jury before the entry of a plea of guilty. The court stated, “where, as here, the application of article 220 would nullify the effect of another express provision of law specifically relating to the prosecution of crimes in local criminal courts, the specific provision, such as that embodied in CPL 170.20 (subd 2), must be read as one of the exceptions contemplated by CPL 340.20 (subd 1).”

    The Court further explained the purpose of CPL 220.10(2), stating that “[t]he purpose of CPL 220.10 (subd 2) is to afford an indicted defendant an opportunity, as a matter of right, to plead guilty to all charges in an indictment so that he might avoid the expense and ordeal of a trial.” The Court clarified that the statute was not designed to allow a defendant to preempt the accusatory process before it is complete, especially when the initial assessment of the defendant’s wrongdoing was inadequate. The court concluded that the timing of the defendant’s offer to plead guilty, preceding the prosecution’s adjournment request, was insufficient to alter this outcome.