People v. Bonnet

288 A.D.2d 161, 733 N.Y.S.2d 186, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11549
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 161 (People v. Bonnet) 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 v. Bonnet, 288 A.D.2d 161, 733 N.Y.S.2d 186, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered July 15, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction was not jurisdictionally defective (compare, People v D’Amico, 76 NY2d 877, with People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585). Defendant’s waiver of indictment and prosecution by superior court information were valid, even though defendant had already been indicted, because the court had dismissed the indictment in its entirety while granting the People leave to re-present the charges (see, CPL 210.45 [9]). This placed defendant back on a “formal preindictment procedural track” (People v Casdia, 78 NY2d 1024, 1026) prior to the use of the superior court information procedure (CPL 195.10; People v Noe, 170 AD2d 1029, lv denied 77 NY2d 909). Moreover, the People also filed a new felony complaint containing the new charge of attempted fifth-degree possession.

Summary denial of defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence was proper since the factual allegations set forth in [162]*162defendant’s motion papers were insufficient to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415). Defendant’s denial of unlawful activity “at any time prior to his arrest” failed to address the People’s specific contention that defendant had sold drugs to an undercover officer, and defendant did not assert any other basis for suppression (see, People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721; compare, People v Hightower, 85 NY2d 988, 990). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lemer and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Eggleston
2019 NY Slip Op 4497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Vermont
96 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Rivera
14 Misc. 3d 726 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
People v. McDowell
30 A.D.3d 160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Lopez
10 A.D.3d 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 161, 733 N.Y.S.2d 186, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonnet-nyappdiv-2001.