People v. Driscoll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Driscoll

131 A.D.3d 766, 14 N.Y.S.3d 596

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

DecidedAugust 13, 2015

Docket106583

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 766 (People v. Driscoll) 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. Driscoll, 131 A.D.3d 766, 14 N.Y.S.3d 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered March 27, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, he was to waive his right to appeal and be sentenced to a cap of one year of incarceration, followed by one year of postrelease supervision. In addition, County Court imposed certain conditions on the sentence advising defendant, among other things, that if he was arrested prior to sentencing, it would not be obligated to impose the agreed-upon sentence. Before sentencing, defendant was arrested on two separate occasions. Although defense counsel questioned the validity of these arrests, County Court imposed an enhanced sentence of three years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, based upon defendant’s violation of the sentencing conditions. * Defendant declined to complete his signing of the written waiver of his right to appeal at sentencing and he now appeals.

Defendant’s sole challenge is to County Court’s imposition of the enhanced sentence based upon his two arrests. When the validity of a postplea arrest is called into question, “the court *767 must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation” (People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993], cert denied 519 US 964 [1996]; see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Smalls, 85 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2011]). Significantly, “[t]he nature and extent of the inquiry — whether through a summary hearing pursuant to CPL 400.10 or some other fair means — is within the court’s discretion [but it] must be of sufficient depth, ... so that the court can be satisfied ... of the existence of a legitimate basis for the arrest” (People v Outley, 80 NY2d at 713 [internal citation omitted]).

Here, County Court did not conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding the validity of defendant’s two arrests, and one was not required (see id. at 713; People v Talbot, 114 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]). Instead, the court made an on-the-record inquiry during the sentencing proceeding at which it considered the accusatory instruments, supporting documentation and arguments of counsel before concluding that a legitimate basis existed for defendant’s arrests. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that County Court’s inquiry was adequate and established that a legitimate basis existed for defendant’s arrests thereby warranting its imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Talbot, 114 AD3d at 1001; People v Paneto, 112 AD3d 1230, 1231[2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1023 [2014]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

County Court denied defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea at sentencing.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered March 27, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, he was to waive his right to appeal and be sentenced to a cap of one year of incarceration, followed by one year of postrelease supervision. In addition, County Court imposed certain conditions on the sentence advising defendant, among other things, that if he was arrested prior to sentencing, it would not be obligated to impose the agreed-upon sentence. Before sentencing, defendant was arrested on two separate occasions. Although defense counsel questioned the validity of these arrests, County Court imposed an enhanced sentence of three years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, based upon defendant’s violation of the sentencing conditions. * Defendant declined to complete his signing of the written waiver of his right to appeal at sentencing and he now appeals.

Defendant’s sole challenge is to County Court’s imposition of the enhanced sentence based upon his two arrests. When the validity of a postplea arrest is called into question, “the court *767 must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation” (People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993], cert denied 519 US 964 [1996]; see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Smalls, 85 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2011]). Significantly, “[t]he nature and extent of the inquiry — whether through a summary hearing pursuant to CPL 400.10 or some other fair means — is within the court’s discretion [but it] must be of sufficient depth, ... so that the court can be satisfied ... of the existence of a legitimate basis for the arrest” (People v Outley, 80 NY2d at 713 [internal citation omitted]).

Here, County Court did not conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding the validity of defendant’s two arrests, and one was not required (see id. at 713; People v Talbot, 114 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2014]). Instead, the court made an on-the-record inquiry during the sentencing proceeding at which it considered the accusatory instruments, supporting documentation and arguments of counsel before concluding that a legitimate basis existed for defendant’s arrests. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that County Court’s inquiry was adequate and established that a legitimate basis existed for defendant’s arrests thereby warranting its imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Talbot, 114 AD3d at 1001; People v Paneto, 112 AD3d 1230, 1231[2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1023 [2014]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

County Court denied defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his plea at sentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 766, 14 N.Y.S.3d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-driscoll-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack