Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE & c., Appellant, v. Yermia SOLOMON, a/k/a Jeremy Solomon, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM:
The Appellate Division order should be affirmed.
A grand jury indicted defendant on several felony sex offenses based on allegations that he engaged in sexual contact with an underage victim. Defendant agreed to be prosecuted under a Superior Court Information (“SCI”) and, in full satisfaction of the amended indictment, which was consolidated with the SCI for plea purposes, defendant pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child under Penal Law § 260.10 and was sentenced to three years' probation. The Appellate Division subsequently concluded the SCI was jurisdictionally defective, reversed defendant's conviction, and dismissed the SCI (203 A.D.3d 1468, 166 N.Y.S.3d 282 [3d Dept. 2022]). The prosecution appeals.*
A defendant may waive their constitutional right to grand jury presentment and indictment and proceed by SCI in accordance with the strict technical requirements of CPL 195.10(2). Here, the SCI was filed after the grand jury indicted defendant and thus the SCI failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites. Accordingly, the SCI is a nullity and was properly dismissed (see CPL 195.10[2]; People v. Boston, 75 N.Y.2d 585, 555 N.Y.S.2d 27, 554 N.E.2d 64 [1990]; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656 [1978]; People v. Randall, 9 N.Y.2d 413, 422–423, 214 N.Y.S.2d 417, 174 N.E.2d 507 [1961]).
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. The prosecution limits its challenge to the dismissal of the SCI. Therefore, we have no occasion to opine on the Appellate Division's determination that it was error to permit the prosecutor's amendment of the indictment to correct the victim's date of birth.
Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro and Troutman concur. Judge Halligan took no part.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 25
Decided: April 20, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)