People v. Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Ramsay (nyappdiv, 2024-02-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ramsay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply ( see Reyes , 219 AD3d at 1686 ; Smith , 198 AD3d at 1347 ; People v Ramirez , 180 AD3d 1378, 1379 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 973 [2020]; cf. Peque , 22 NY3d at 182-183 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Meeks
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
A waiver of indictment that fails to provide sufficient information about the approximate time or location of an offense is not per se jurisdictionally defective where the alleged omissions merely involve "non-elemental factual information" ( Thomas , 34 NY3d at 569; see People v O'Connor , 184 AD3d 1137, 1137-1138 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1068 [2020]; People v Ramirez , 180 AD3d 1378, 1379 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 973 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Patterson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defendant's contentions in her main brief regarding the written waiver of indictment are " 'forfeited by [her] guilty plea' inasmuch as defendant 'lodges no claim that [s]he lacked notice of the precise crime[s] for which [s]he waived prosecution by indictment' " ( People v Ramirez , 180 AD3d 1378, 1379 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 973 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. O'Connor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Those omissions were of "non-elemental factual information" ( People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 569 [2019]), and thus defendant's contention is forfeited by his plea inasmuch as defendant does not assert that he lacked notice of the precise crime for which he waived prosecution by indictment ( see id. ; People v Ramirez , 180 AD3d 1378, 1378-1379 [4th Dept 2020]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Adejumo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Because defendant's contention is that the indictment waiver form omitted "non-elemental factual information," that contention is "forfeited by [his] guilty plea" inasmuch as defendant "lodges no claim that he lacked notice of the precise crime[] for which he waived prosecution by indictment" ( People v Thomas , — NY3d &mdash, &mdash, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545 , *8 [2019]; see People v Ramirez , 180 AD3d 1378, 1378 [4th Dept 2020]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People
v.
Ramirez
1307 KA 16-00924.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2020.
2020 NY Slip Op 970
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
People v Ramirez (2020 NY Slip Op 00970)
People v Ramirez
2020 NY Slip Op 00970
Decided on February 7, 2020
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 7, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, TROUTMAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

1307 KA 16-00924

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

ROBERTO . RAMIREZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.




TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered August 4, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]) upon his plea of guilty to a superior court information. Defendant contends that "his written waiver of indictment was jurisdictionally defective because, notwithstanding its substantial compliance with CPL 195.20 as to content, it did not state the date, approximate time and place of the specific offenses for which he was held for the action of the grand jury, in violation of that statute" (People v Thomas, — NY3d &mdash, &mdash, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, *7 [2019]). Because defendant's contention is that the indictment waiver form omitted "non-elemental factual information," that contention is "forfeited by [his] guilty plea" inasmuch as defendant "lodges no claim that he lacked notice of the precise crime[] for which he waived prosecution by indictment" (id. at &mdash, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, *8). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the failure of County Court to advise him that he could be subject to deportation if he pleaded guilty renders his plea involuntary (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], cert denied 574 US 840 [2014]). We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply (see People v Chelley, 120 AD3d 987, 988 [4th Dept 2014]; cf. Peque, 22 NY3d at 182-183).

Entered: February 7, 2020

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court