People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518 (2014)

A defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive prosecution by misdemeanor information, even if the case was initially commenced by an information, and upon such waiver, the accusatory instrument need only satisfy the reasonable cause standard applicable to a misdemeanor complaint.

Summary

Joseph Dumay was arrested for obstructing governmental administration. He pleaded guilty in exchange for a 15-day sentence after his counsel stated, “So waive,” in response to the court’s inquiry about waiving prosecution by information. Dumay later appealed, arguing that he did not validly waive prosecution by information and that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient. The Court of Appeals held that Dumay did validly waive prosecution by information, and the accusatory instrument met the reasonable cause standard required for a misdemeanor complaint. This decision underscores the importance of clear and affirmative acts demonstrating a defendant’s intent to waive statutory protections and prevents manipulation of the plea bargaining system.

Facts

Dumay was arrested on a public street in Brooklyn for obstructing a police officer. The accusatory instrument stated that Dumay “slammed the trunk of [the police officer’s] radio mounted patrol vehicle with an open hand and prevented said vehicle from moving by standing behind it and preventing [the police officer] from patrolling the neighborhood.” In court, Dumay agreed to plead guilty to obstructing governmental administration in exchange for a 15-day sentence. When the court asked defense counsel if Dumay waived prosecution by information, the defense attorney responded, “So waive.” Dumay admitted the facts during the plea allocution.

Procedural History

Dumay appealed his conviction to the Appellate Term, arguing he did not waive prosecution by information and the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective. The Appellate Term affirmed, finding Dumay expressly waived his right, and the allegations were sufficient as a misdemeanor complaint. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Dumay validly waived his right to prosecution by information.

2. Whether the accusatory instrument met the factual sufficiency requirements of a misdemeanor complaint, specifically regarding the elements of intent and obstruction.

Holding

1. Yes, Dumay validly waived his right to prosecution by information because defense counsel affirmatively stated, “So waive,” in open court and in Dumay’s presence.

2. Yes, the accusatory instrument met the requirements of a misdemeanor complaint because it established reasonable cause to believe Dumay committed the offense of obstructing governmental administration.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that a valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution. While a misdemeanor information requires non-hearsay allegations establishing every element of the offense, a misdemeanor complaint only requires facts establishing reasonable cause. The Court emphasized that a defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive prosecution by information through an affirmative act. Here, defense counsel’s statement, “So waive,” constituted a clear waiver. The court rejected Dumay’s argument that he could not waive prosecution by information because the People initiated the case by information, clarifying that CPL 170.65 specifically allows such a waiver. The Court also reasoned that adopting Dumay’s interpretation would allow manipulation of the plea bargaining system and undermine the finality of convictions.

Regarding the sufficiency of the complaint, the court noted that a misdemeanor complaint is adequate if it provides sufficient notice of the crime and establishes reasonable cause. Penal Law § 195.05 defines obstructing governmental administration as intentionally obstructing a public servant from performing an official function. The Court found the instrument provided enough facts: Dumay slammed the trunk of a marked police car and stood behind it, preventing the officer from patrolling. The court stated, “[C]riminal responsibility should attach to minimal interference set in motion to frustrate police activity.” Intent could be inferred from the act itself, as Dumay struck a “radio mounted patrol vehicle,” showing awareness of its official use. The Court concluded the instrument provided sufficient notice and prevented double jeopardy, affirming the Appellate Term’s order.