Campbell v. Pesce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Campbell v. Pesce

88 A.D.2d 944, 451 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17300

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 14, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 944 (Campbell v. Pesce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. Pesce, 88 A.D.2d 944, 451 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the further prosecution of petitioner for acts that were the subject of a prior plea and sentence, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), dated February 23, 1982 which denied the petition.- Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Criminal Court acted properly in vacating petitioner’s guilty plea, which had been accepted in violation of CPL 180.50 (subd 2, par [b]) (see People u Bartley, 60 AD2d 283, affd 47 NY2d 965; People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360), and his subsequent indictment on new charges was not in violation of principles of double jeopardy. Petitioner’s argument that there was an implicit finding of no reasonable cause to believe he had committed an armed felony was directly refuted by the court’s acknowledged failure to even consider CPL 180.50 (subd 2, par [b]). The failure to designate the felony complaint as an armed felony complaint, as required by CPL 100.15 (subd 4), did not negate the mandate of CPL 180.50 (subd 2, par [b]). Weinstein, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the further prosecution of petitioner for acts that were the subject of a prior plea and sentence, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), dated February 23, 1982 which denied the petition.- Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Criminal Court acted properly in vacating petitioner’s guilty plea, which had been accepted in violation of CPL 180.50 (subd 2, par [b]) (see People u Bartley, 60 AD2d 283, affd 47 NY2d 965; People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360), and his subsequent indictment on new charges was not in violation of principles of double jeopardy. Petitioner’s argument that there was an implicit finding of no reasonable cause to believe he had committed an armed felony was directly refuted by the court’s acknowledged failure to even consider CPL 180.50 (subd 2, par [b]). The failure to designate the felony complaint as an armed felony complaint, as required by CPL 100.15 (subd 4), did not negate the mandate of CPL 180.50 (subd 2, par [b]). Weinstein, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 944, 451 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-pesce-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack