People v. Kinnaman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kinnaman

298 A.D.2d 902, 747 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9032

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 902 (People v. Kinnaman) 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. Kinnaman, 298 A.D.2d 902, 747 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered September 29, 2000, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The proof necessary to establish the elements of the traffic infractions to which defendant pleaded guilty in the Town Courts of Livonia and Richmond is different from the proof necessary to establish the elements of the offenses charged in the indictment. Thus, the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was not violated by the prosecution of the indictment (see People v Dwight S., 33 AD2d 1032, affd 29 [903]*903NY2d 172; People v Lindsly, 99 AD2d 99, 100-101; see generally People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 221, cert denied 475 US 1150). Nor was the prosecution of the indictment barred by the statutory prohibition against separate prosecutions for offenses based upon the same criminal transaction (see CPL 40.20 [2]). Separate prosecutions for the traffic infractions and the offenses charged in the indictment were authorized under paragraphs (a) and (b) of CPL 40.20 (2) (see Lindsly, 99 AD2d at 101; People v Green, 89 Misc 2d 639, 640-641). Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered September 29, 2000, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The proof necessary to establish the elements of the traffic infractions to which defendant pleaded guilty in the Town Courts of Livonia and Richmond is different from the proof necessary to establish the elements of the offenses charged in the indictment. Thus, the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was not violated by the prosecution of the indictment (see People v Dwight S., 33 AD2d 1032, affd 29 [903]*903NY2d 172; People v Lindsly, 99 AD2d 99, 100-101; see generally People v Prescott, 66 NY2d 216, 221, cert denied 475 US 1150). Nor was the prosecution of the indictment barred by the statutory prohibition against separate prosecutions for offenses based upon the same criminal transaction (see CPL 40.20 [2]). Separate prosecutions for the traffic infractions and the offenses charged in the indictment were authorized under paragraphs (a) and (b) of CPL 40.20 (2) (see Lindsly, 99 AD2d at 101; People v Green, 89 Misc 2d 639, 640-641). Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 902, 747 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kinnaman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack