Introduction

This appeal arises from a global plea disposition that resolved two separate matters involving Nicholas Lesson in Saratoga County. In one matter, Lesson pleaded guilty to attempted rape in the first degree in satisfaction of a six-count indictment, with an agreed determinate sentence of six years’ imprisonment and 15 years of postrelease supervision (PRS). In a separate matter initiated by felony complaint charging burglary in the second degree, he waived indictment and pleaded guilty by superior court information (SCI) to burglary in the third degree, with a concurrent 364‑day jail term.

On appeal, Lesson mounted a two‑pronged attack on the SCI case, arguing (1) the waiver of indictment and SCI were jurisdictionally defective because they identified the crime scene as located in the Town of Stillwater, rather than the Village of Stillwater as stated in the felony complaint; and (2) the SCI improperly charged a different offense not encompassed by, or a lesser included offense of, the felony complaint. Because the plea was global, he contended that any defect in the SCI required vacatur of both convictions. He also challenged the severity of the aggregate sentence.

The Third Department affirmed. In doing so, it clarified important rules regarding (i) what constitutes a jurisdictional defect in a waiver of indictment and SCI, (ii) when an SCI may permissibly charge a lesser‑included offense in lieu of the complaint’s offense, (iii) preservation and forfeiture of non‑elemental pleading discrepancies upon a guilty plea, and (iv) how an otherwise overbroad written waiver of appeal may be cured by a proper oral colloquy.

Summary of the Judgment

• The court held that the Town/Village misdescription of the offense location in the waiver of indictment and SCI was non‑elemental “factual information” and did not render those documents jurisdictionally defective. Because Lesson pleaded guilty without objecting, the claim was forfeited.
• The SCI properly charged burglary in the third degree as a lesser‑included offense of the burglary in the second degree count alleged in the felony complaint. Entering with intent to commit petit larceny necessarily constitutes entering with intent to commit a crime; and a dwelling is a species of building. Thus, the SCI satisfied CPL 195.20.
• The global‑plea argument failed: with the SCI conviction sustained, there was no basis to unravel the attempted rape plea.
• Lesson’s challenge to the severity of his sentence was foreclosed by valid waivers of appeal, which the trial court properly explained as separate from trial rights and limited in scope, notwithstanding an overbroad written form.
• Judgments affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• People v Morgan‑Smith, 182 AD3d 923 (3d Dept 2020), lv denied 35 NY3d 1047 (2020)
  • Used to underscore that certain descriptors in accusatory instruments—such as date, approximate time, and place—are non‑elemental factual information. The Third Department drew on Morgan‑Smith to hold that “Town” versus “Village” is a non‑elemental variance that does not undermine jurisdiction.
• People v Lang, 34 NY3d 545 (2019)
  • Relied on for two related propositions: (a) purported factual insufficiencies in the instrument to which a plea is taken are not nonwaivable jurisdictional defects and must be preserved in the trial court; and (b) non‑elemental misstatements do not void jurisdiction.
• People v Hooker, 230 AD3d 1465 (3d Dept 2024)
  • Quoted for the standard that an SCI (which is held to the same pleading requirements as an indictment) is jurisdictionally defective only if it fails to charge conduct constituting every material element of the offense.
• People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 (2019)
  • Two strands: First, when assessing notice and double‑jeopardy protection, courts may consider the felony complaint, waiver of indictment, and SCI together. Second, on waivers of appeal, the “totality of the circumstances” test requires that the defendant understand the nature and consequences of the waiver, including the survival of certain nonwaivable issues.
• People v Perry, 235 AD3d 1041 (3d Dept 2025), lv denied 43 NY3d 965 (2025)
  • Support for evaluating notice across related filings, and for forfeiture principles when non‑elemental defects are not raised prior to plea.
• People v DePace, 235 AD3d 1179 (3d Dept 2025)
  • Reinforces that non‑jurisdictional challenges to accusatory instruments are forfeited by a guilty plea.
• People v Guerrero, 28 NY3d 110 (2016)
  • Contrasted to explain when a jurisdictional defect does exist—i.e., failure to allege an element—such a defect survives a guilty plea. Here, by contrast, the Lesson court found no such elemental omission.
• People v Pierce, 14 NY3d 564 (2010), and People v Llewelyn, 221 AD3d 1060 (3d Dept 2023), lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 (2024)
  • Authorities for the principle that an argument that the SCI charges an offense not encompassed by or joinable with the charge for which the defendant was held for grand jury action survives a plea and appeal waiver. The court reached and rejected that claim on the merits.
• People v McCall, 216 AD3d 1317 (3d Dept 2023)
  • Provides the test for lesser‑included offenses and confirms that an SCI may charge a lesser‑included offense of the complaint’s charge under CPL 195.20.
• People v Taylor, 163 AD3d 1275 (3d Dept 2018), lv denied 32 NY3d 1068 (2018)
  • Recognizes that when an indictment specifies a particular theory (e.g., intent to commit petit larceny), the People must prove that theory at trial. Lesson distinguishes Taylor because Lesson involves a plea to an SCI charging a lesser‑included offense with generalized criminal intent, not a trial on a narrowed indictment.
• People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 (2006); People v Bisono, 36 NY3d 1013 (2020); People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737 (2006); People v Shanks, 37 NY3d 244 (2021)
  • Collectively frame the law on appeal waivers. The court found the waivers here valid because the oral colloquies explained that the waivers were separate from trial rights and limited in scope, thereby curing the overbreadth of the written forms.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Non‑elemental discrepancies are not jurisdictional and are forfeited by a guilty plea

Under CPL 195.20, a waiver of indictment must include the “name, date and approximate time and place” of each charged offense, and an SCI may charge any offense for which the defendant was held for grand jury action or a joinable offense. The court emphasized that the “place” requirement concerns non‑elemental factual information. The municipal label discrepancy—Town versus Village at the same street address in the same county—did not go to an element of burglary in the third degree. It therefore did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, particularly since the instruments otherwise identified the correct street address, county, approximate date range, time, and specific Penal Law violations in conformity with CPL 200.50(5).

Because Lesson did not object before pleading guilty, his non‑elemental pleading challenge was forfeited. This follows the Court of Appeals’ guidance that alleged factual insufficiencies in the instrument to which a plea is taken must be preserved and do not constitute nonwaivable jurisdictional defects.

b) Adequate notice and double‑jeopardy protection

Reading the felony complaint, waiver of indictment, and SCI together, the Third Department found that Lesson received enough information to prepare a defense and to protect against double jeopardy. The correct street address and county were constant; only the municipal descriptor varied. That level of detail met constitutional notice requirements.

c) The SCI properly charged a lesser‑included offense of the complaint

The SCI charged burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), which requires knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. The felony complaint had charged burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25(2))—the “dwelling” form—with the specific intent to commit petit larceny.

Applying the lesser‑included test, the court reasoned that it is impossible to commit burglary in the second degree (dwelling) as charged (entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny) without simultaneously committing burglary in the third degree (entering a building with intent to commit a crime). A dwelling is a building; and intent to commit petit larceny is categorically an intent to commit a crime. Hence, burglary in the third degree is a valid lesser‑included offense of the complaint’s charge. CPL 195.20 was satisfied because the SCI named an offense for which the defendant was held for grand jury action in lesser‑included form.

Lesson’s reliance on Taylor was misplaced. Taylor concerns proof limits imposed by a trial on a narrowed indictment. In contrast, Lesson pleaded to an SCI, and the lesser‑included offense need not specify the particular predicate crime (e.g., petit larceny) so long as it charges the general intent required by the lesser offense.

d) Global plea remains intact

Because the SCI conviction was upheld, Lesson’s attempt to set aside the attempted rape plea on the theory that the global bargain failed necessarily collapsed. The predicate premise—invalidity of the SCI—was rejected.

e) Appeal waivers were valid and foreclose sentence review

Although the written waivers of appeal were of a type the Third Department has criticized as overbroad in other cases, the trial court here delivered clarifying oral colloquies. The court explained that the waivers were separate from the trial rights surrendered by the pleas, that certain categories of appellate review remained available, and it confirmed Lesson’s understanding after consultation with counsel. That totality sufficed to render the waivers valid, thereby precluding his excessiveness challenge to the sentence.

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

• Plea‑stage challenges must be timely: Defense counsel must object to non‑elemental factual discrepancies—like a Town/Village mislabel—before the plea or risk forfeiture. Post‑plea attacks styled as “jurisdictional” will fail absent an omission of a material element.
• Stability of global pleas: Defendants cannot unravel a global disposition by pinpointing clerical or non‑elemental inconsistencies in one component case after a guilty plea. This promotes finality in negotiated resolutions across multiple dockets.
• SCI charging flexibility: Prosecutors may resolve felony‑complaint burglary cases through an SCI that charges a lesser‑included burglary count with generalized criminal intent, even where the complaint specified a particular predicate crime (e.g., petit larceny). This facilitates streamlined plea bargaining under CPL 195.20 while respecting the lesser‑included doctrine.
• Record‑building for appeal waivers: Trial courts and counsel are reminded to use oral colloquies to cure overbreadth in written appeal waivers. Clear articulation that some issues remain reviewable helps preserve the validity of waivers and forecloses later disputes.
• Administrative precision still matters: While Lesson tolerates certain non‑elemental misdescriptions, accuracy in municipal descriptors, dates, and times remains best practice to avoid litigation and ensure notice. Courts will examine the instruments collectively for clarity and double‑jeopardy protection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Waiver of Indictment and Superior Court Information (SCI)
  • Instead of waiting for a grand jury indictment, a defendant can waive that right and consent to be charged by an SCI, which functions like an indictment and must meet similar pleading standards. Under CPL 195.20, the SCI must charge an offense for which the defendant was held for grand jury action or a properly joinable offense.
• Jurisdictional Defect versus Non‑jurisdictional Defect
  • A jurisdictional defect is a fundamental flaw—typically the failure to allege conduct constituting every element of the offense. Such a defect survives a guilty plea. By contrast, inaccuracies in non‑elemental facts (e.g., a Town vs. Village label) are non‑jurisdictional and must be raised before a guilty plea or they are forfeited.
• Non‑elemental Factual Information
  • Details like the approximate date, time, and place are required in accusatory instruments but are not elements of most crimes. Errors in such descriptors generally do not void the court’s authority to proceed.
• Lesser‑Included Offense
  • An offense is “lesser‑included” if one cannot commit the greater offense without, by the same conduct, committing the lesser. Burglary in the third degree (entering a building with intent to commit a crime) is lesser‑included in burglary in the second degree (dwelling), because a dwelling is a building and the specific intent to commit a particular crime (like petit larceny) is still intent to commit a crime.
• Global Plea
  • A single negotiated disposition resolving multiple cases. If one case in the bundle is invalidated, the defense may argue that the entire bargain fails. In Lesson, the court found no defect in the SCI case, so the global plea stood.
• Waiver of Appeal
  • A defendant can waive certain appellate rights as part of a plea, but the waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and understood as separate from trial rights. Courts often conduct an oral colloquy to ensure clarity, especially when the written form could otherwise be read as overbroad.
• Postrelease Supervision (PRS) and Sentence Merger
  • PRS is a period of supervision following release from prison. When a defendant receives a definite jail term concurrent with a determinate prison term for a different conviction, the jail term typically merges into and is satisfied by the prison term by operation of law.

Key Takeaways

• Misnaming the municipal location of an offense (Town vs. Village) in a waiver of indictment or SCI is a non‑elemental variance that is not jurisdictional and is forfeited by an unpreserved guilty plea.
• An SCI may charge burglary in the third degree as a lesser‑included offense of burglary in the second degree (dwelling), and it may allege a general intent to commit a crime even if the complaint specified petit larceny.
• Courts may read the felony complaint, waiver, and SCI together to assess notice and double‑jeopardy sufficiency.
• A clarifying oral colloquy can validate an otherwise overbroad written waiver of appeal; a proper explanation that some issues remain reviewable is critical.
• Global pleas remain intact absent a demonstrable jurisdictional defect; non‑elemental pleading discrepancies will not unravel a comprehensive plea bargain.

Conclusion

People v. Lesson meaningfully refines New York practice at the intersection of plea bargaining and accusatory instrument sufficiency. The Third Department draws a clean line between elemental allegations—whose omission is jurisdictional and survives a plea—and non‑elemental factual descriptors, which, even if mistaken, are subject to preservation rules and forfeited by a guilty plea. The decision also confirms that burglary in the third degree is a classic lesser‑included offense of burglary in the second degree (dwelling), thereby authorizing resolution by SCI that alleges generalized criminal intent. Finally, the court reinforces that appeal waivers, though often challenged, will be enforced where the trial court’s colloquy makes clear the waiver’s limited scope and separateness from trial rights. As a practical matter, Lesson promotes finality and efficiency in global plea negotiations while preserving defendants’ core protections: adequate notice, double‑jeopardy safeguards, and the right to challenge true jurisdictional defects.