Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Cox 275 A.D.2d 924

← Cases

People v. Cox

275 A.D.2d 924 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2000-09-29 English

Contents

Majority

p. 924
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oswald Cox, Appellant.
[713 NYS2d 708]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective because he is accused therein of crimes committed on a different date, at a different time and in a different place from those for which he was arrested. Although a jurisdictional

p. 925
defect in an indictment may be raised for the first time on appeal (see, People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589 , 600), a mistake with respect to date, time or place is a technical defect rather than “a jurisdictional defect vital to the sufficiency of the indictment or the guilty plea entered thereto” (People v Kepple, 98 AD2d 783 ). “[A]n indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime” (People v Iannone, supra, at 600 ). Further, because defendant’s contention raises only a technical defect rather than a jurisdictional one, that contention was forfeited by defendant’s plea of guilty (see, People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 , 1009, rearg denied 58 NY2d 824 ; People v Vega, 268 AD2d 686 ).

The bargained-for sentence imposed by County Court is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, People v Parker, 261 AD2d 926 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1024 ). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cases cited