People v. Hill

• Decision Date: 16 June 2022
• Docket Number: 57
• Citation: 38 N.Y.3d 460,195 N.E.3d 47,174 N.Y.S.3d 340
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ron HILL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

38 N.Y.3d 460
195 N.E.3d 47
174 N.Y.S.3d 340

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ron HILL, Appellant.

No. 57

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided June 16, 2022

195 N.E.3d 48

174 N.Y.S.3d 341

Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joshua P. Weiss and Nancy D. Killian of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SINGAS, J.

38 N.Y.3d 462

Defendant Ron Hill was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree for allegedly possessing an illegal synthetic cannabinoid. The Public Health Law's controlled substance schedules criminalize possession of some, but not all, synthetic cannabinoids. Because the misdemeanor to which defendant pleaded guilty failed to allege a sufficient factual basis to conclude that the substance defendant possessed was illegal, that count was facially deficient and should be dismissed.

In 2018, defendant was charged, in a complaint, with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03 ), a class A misdemeanor, and possession, manufacture, distribution, sale or offer of sale of synthetic phenethylamines and synthetic cannabinoids under the State Sanitary Code, a violation (see 10 NYCRR former 9.2; 10 NYCRR 9–1.2 ). In the factual portion of the accusatory instrument, an officer alleged that he saw defendant possess one "clear ziplock bag containing a shredded dried plant-like material with a chemical odor." "[B]ased upon [his] training and experience, which includes training in the recognition of controlled substances, and their packaging," the officer averred that the "substance is alleged and believed to be SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID/SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA (K2)." The complaint made no reference to Public Health Law § 3306(g), or its schedule which lists 10 proscribed synthetic cannabinoid substances by specific chemical designation.

At arraignment, defendant waived prosecution by information, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in satisfaction of the accusatory

38 N.Y.3d 463

instrument, and was sentenced to a conditional discharge. Defendant appealed, arguing that the misdemeanor complaint was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to allege that he possessed one of the synthetic cannabinoid substances listed in Public Health Law § 3306(g).

The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment, concluding that the complaint was valid because it provided sufficient notice of the crime charged and established reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed that crime (see

174 N.Y.S.3d 342

195 N.E.3d 49

69 Misc.3d 145[A], 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 51394[U], 2020 WL 6865493 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2020] ). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (see 37 N.Y.3d 965, 148 N.Y.S.3d 778, 171 N.E.3d 254 [2021] ). We now reverse.

A guilty plea "generally marks the end of a criminal case, not a gateway to further litigation" ( People v. Konieczny, 2 N.Y.3d 569, 572, 780 N.Y.S.2d 546, 813 N.E.2d 626 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Certain "limited issues surviv[e] a guilty plea," however, including "jurisdictional matters" like the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument ( id. at 573, 780 N.Y.S.2d 546, 813 N.E.2d 626 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

The standard "for whether a flaw in an accusatory instrument is jurisdictional" is whether the instrument failed to give the defendant "sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy" ( People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 103, 905 N.Y.S.2d 542, 931 N.E.2d 526 [2010] ; see People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 524, 992 N.Y.S.2d 672, 16 N.E.3d 1150 [2014] ). "Pleading errors involving omission of elements of the charged crime are fundamental. They impair a defendant's basic rights to fair notice sufficient to enable preparation of a defense and to prevent double jeopardy" ( People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 366, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 [2000] ).

Because defendant waived his statutory right to be prosecuted by misdemeanor information, the standard governing misdemeanor complaints applies. "A misdemeanor complaint ... is sufficient on its face when ... [t]he allegations of the factual part," along with "any supporting...