People v Herring (Charles)

[*1] People v Herring (Charles) 2010 NY Slip Op 51717(U) [29 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on October 1, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 1, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2007-1791 K CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Charles Herring, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ruth E. Smith, J.), rendered October 22, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of failing to register or to verify a registration as required by article 6-C of the Correction Law.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The superseding information charged defendant with, inter alia, failing to register as a sex offender or to verify on each anniversary of an initial registration (Correction Law § 168-f [2]; § 168-t). Defendant pleaded guilty and contends on appeal that the information was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to contain facts establishingevery element of the offense charged and because the factual allegations contained therein were based upon hearsay.

Section 100.40 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law states that an information is sufficient on its face when it substantially conforms to the requirements of CPL 100.15, its factual allegations (together with any supporting depositions which may accompany it) provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part, and the nonhearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and defendant's commission thereof. The failure to comply with the foregoing requirements is a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect (see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]), with the exception of the nonhearsay requirement which is deemed waived absent a pretrial motion (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]) or forfeited by operation of law as a consequence of a plea of guilty (see People v Pittman, 100 NY2d 114, 122 [2003]). "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and [*2]not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

We find that the allegations of the factual portion of the superseding information as well as of the supporting deposition establish, if true, every element of the offense charged. As any issue with respect to hearsay allegations has been forfeited by operation of law (see id.), we affirm the judgment of conviction.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 01, 2010