People ex rel. Ortiz v. Commissioner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Ortiz v. Commissioner

76 A.D.2d 818, 429 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11852

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

DecidedJune 26, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 818 (People ex rel. Ortiz v. Commissioner) 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

People ex rel. Ortiz v. Commissioner, 76 A.D.2d 818, 429 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 10, 1980, dismissing petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus seeking review of a bail determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Petitioner was arrested for possessing one ounce of cocaine, and was released on his own recognizance. Subsequently he was rearrested and charged with other narcotics violations involving four sales of cocaine to an undercover officer. Bail was set at $5,000 on the new charges, but at the subsequent arraignment on the indictment the court exonerated the $5,000 bail and remanded petitioner without bail. The court defended its decision that petitioner had forfeited his right to bail with a finding that, while at liberty pending trial on the original charge, he had "probably committed” the crimes for which he was rearrested. CPL 510.30, which established the factors to be considered in setting bail, does not provide for automatic forfeiture of bail by a defendant when he commits other crimes. At the same time, however, the statute permits the court in setting bail to weigh, inter alia, a defendant’s criminal record (CPL 510.30, subd 2, par [a], cl [iv]), the probability of conviction (cl vii), and the sentence facing the defendant (cl viii). In light of the seriousness of the crimes with which petitioner was charged, and the probability of conviction (he was rearrested five minutes after selling four and three-eighths ounces of cocaine to an undercover officer for $7,300, the $7,300 in buy money was found in his possession; and in three of the four sales the undercover officer had worn a body tape and recorded the conversations and negotiations), we find that the court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in revoking bail, and that the writ was properly dismissed. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 10, 1980, dismissing petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus seeking review of a bail determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Petitioner was arrested for possessing one ounce of cocaine, and was released on his own recognizance. Subsequently he was rearrested and charged with other narcotics violations involving four sales of cocaine to an undercover officer. Bail was set at $5,000 on the new charges, but at the subsequent arraignment on the indictment the court exonerated the $5,000 bail and remanded petitioner without bail. The court defended its decision that petitioner had forfeited his right to bail with a finding that, while at liberty pending trial on the original charge, he had "probably committed” the crimes for which he was rearrested. CPL 510.30, which established the factors to be considered in setting bail, does not provide for automatic forfeiture of bail by a defendant when he commits other crimes. At the same time, however, the statute permits the court in setting bail to weigh, inter alia, a defendant’s criminal record (CPL 510.30, subd 2, par [a], cl [iv]), the probability of conviction (cl vii), and the sentence facing the defendant (cl viii). In light of the seriousness of the crimes with which petitioner was charged, and the probability of conviction (he was rearrested five minutes after selling four and three-eighths ounces of cocaine to an undercover officer for $7,300, the $7,300 in buy money was found in his possession; and in three of the four sales the undercover officer had worn a body tape and recorded the conversations and negotiations), we find that the court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in revoking bail, and that the writ was properly dismissed. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 818, 429 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ortiz-v-commissioner-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack