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 of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Linda Poust–Lopez, J., at plea; Judith S. Lieb, J., at sentencing), rendered July 1, 2022, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the plea vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Defendant's waiver of indictment under SCI No. 40–2021 was invalid because the record does not demonstrate that defendant satisfied the requirement of N.Y. Constitution, art 1, § 6 and CPL 195.20 that the written waiver of indictment must be signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel (see People v. Smith, 242 A.D.3d 616, 241 N.Y.S.3d 259 [1st Dept. 2025]). The indictment waiver was dated February 3, 2021, the same date on which the SCI was issued, but a date on which there appears to have been no appearance in this case. Further, the court's description of the indictment waiver suggested that the court understood it to have been signed before the day of the plea. The record as a whole does not clearly support an inference that the “open court” requirement was satisfied. A less than compelling inference does not fulfill the “unequivocal dictate” that the record demonstrate that the defendant signed the waiver in open court (id.). “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved” (id.).
Because we reverse on this ground, we need not address defendant's argument that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
Defendant's contention that the court improperly issued a final order of protection is moot in light of our vacatur of defendant's conviction. We direct that the order remain in force pending further proceedings in this case.
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: 5603
Decided: January 15, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 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)