While I appreciate your reply, I am rather confused by several of your points.


Quote Quoting conanav
View Post
I am not positive about it, but it appears that legally a person cannot plead to the wrong charge.
If it is at a time during the proceedings where you have to enter a plea, there is no such thing as "cannot plead"... In fact in most states, if you refuse to enter a plea then a "not guilty" plea will be entered on your behalf. So rather that set the judge off and start the proceedings on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction, you simply plead not guilty and explain why you did so.

Quote Quoting conanav
View Post
in a sense that any charge is a charge and if it is wrong then the prosecutor should not be able to legally substantiate it in court.
The prosecutor doers not have to substantiate the charge before you enter a plea... That is what a trial is for!
You are either misunderstanding my point here completely, or are providing a counter-argument for an argument sake. First of all, while it may be so in other states, Expert Law does ask for the state of jurisdiction, and as clearly stated on the citation if I do not enter a plea to this traffic citation for any reason, the court will automatically consider me guilty of the filed offense and not vice-versa. Secondly, it was not my intention to "set the judge off" in any way, I was simply reiterating that when a LEO officially charges you with whatever offense he believes you committed, you MUST respond to that specific accusation, whether it in fact happened or is a case of mistaken identity, a clerical error or whatever else it might be.


1. By law, an amendment is going to be the likely course of action here. CPL 100.50 allows for such an amendment to be made at any time prior to plea entry or even prior to trial. If you feel you need time to prepare a defense that it is incumbent upon you to move for a continuance to prepare a defense. But in the grand scheme of things, and since you are also in possession of a supporting deposition that contains information about the actual charge you will be facing, since you were there when the officer pulled you over and discussed the violation with you, and last but not least, and in light of the argument you are standing there making about the citation containing an error, you should have prepared a defense for the actual charge, and as such, should not expect too long of a delay/continuance.

2. You can pretend its all such a difficult concept for you to understand but you see, the problem with that idea is that it is not for you to understand. If the judge sees that the deposition is pretty descriptive of a set of events describing one violation, versus a citation wherein the only description therein is a 5 digit combo, the potential for error there is more definitive that in the deposition, with its long sentences where a typo is not likely to impact the meaning and effect by much, so it should be clear to any reasonable person that the officer simply committed a typo on the citation, that gets corrected, all is well with everyone.
I checked CPL 100.50 and as you said it yourself it allows for an amendment prior to a plea or trial, but not after it. Additionally, the supporting deposition I received DOES NOT contain information about the charge I will be facing. I am cited for 1166B and have responded to 1166B, and the information on the supporting deposition actually clears me of 1166B. Both the citation and the supporting deposition mention the same incorrect violation code: 1166B. If the judge does assume it is a clerical error, he will have to correct both the citation and the supporting deposition. The officer is not required to provide the deposition at the time of the stop, and as such he does have to time to inspect and correct any clerical mistakes. Perhaps it is a difficult concept for me to understand, but I don't understand how a LEO can make a mistake on his deposition, which he can take a few extra days to compose, and have it be alright and simply corrected by the judge at trial in the interest of "justice".

Not only is it not necessary, it isn't relevant. The supporting deposition in this case appears to be (is in fact) an accurate representation what transpired on that day. And so arguing that it is insufficient, nor is it erroneous/inaccurate is based on claims that not only you could not support. But in your first point, you've already argued that the error was in the citation. So when you can find case law stating that a clerical error on the citation would make for a case for dismissal, then you might have a valid argument.
It is very necessary. I already realize that citation errors(the FIRST ERROR) are amendable, but here I am contesting the SECOND ERROR on the supporting deposition itself. I am not sure why you are so fixated on the FIRST citation error, but ignore the SECOND supporting deposition error which the courts found a lot more critical. This is from People v Hussey (2006) "The supporting deposition served on the V&TL 1192 violation under ticket number LV388448-4 . was the fill in the box form that is in standard use by the New York State Police and contains a verification as required by law". The officer is required to verify his statement.

In People v. Cobb(2003), which you mentioned, the typographical mistakes were made regarding hearsay allegations on the document. The defendant tried to suppress his own statement to the police officer, which was mentioned on the charging document, in order to make the whole document defective. Not only is this very different from my situation, it has no relation to traffic law (Cobb was a sex offender) as there was no separate citation and supporting deposition, nor any error regarding the actual charge, and has been decided before People v Hussey.

170.35 also states that "An information, a simplified information, a prosecutor's information or a misdemeanor complaint, or a count thereof, is defective: b)The statute defining the offense charged is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. "