People v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reilly

273 A.D.2d 143, 711 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7154

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 22, 2000·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., on dismissal motion; Patricia Williams, J., at suppression hearing; Allen Alpert, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered February 14, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, and order, same court (John Stackhouse, J.), entered on or about March 18, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. While we would find that defendant had no expectation of privacy in the area where the drugs were recovered, the record also supports the court’s finding that when defendant placed a paper bag containing drugs in a hat that was lying on a wall running along a public sidewalk, and walked away until stopped by the police, defendant abandoned the bag (see, People v RamirezPortoreal, 88 NY2d 99).

Since defendant’s prior Federal conviction pursuant to 21 USC § 841 (a) (1) is analogous to a New York felony, defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender. We continue to adhere to our previous holdings that the unavailability of the agency defense in a foreign jurisdiction has no bearing on whether a foreign felony qualifies as the equivalent of a New York felony (see, People v Roach, 255 AD2d 164, lv denied 92 NY2d 1053; People v Rexach, 220 AD2d 362, lv denied 87 NY2d 924). While the Federal statute encompasses marihuana offenses that would not be felonies in New York, the court properly resorted to the accusatory instrument to determine that defendant’s Federal conviction did not involve marihuana (see, People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586).

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (c) was properly denied as untimely. Nothing [144] prevented defendant from making a timely motion. Instead of making such a motion, defendant chose to plead guilty, and made no motion until months later, after he had withdrawn his plea. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., on dismissal motion; Patricia Williams, J., at suppression hearing; Allen Alpert, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered February 14, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, and order, same court (John Stackhouse, J.), entered on or about March 18, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. While we would find that defendant had no expectation of privacy in the area where the drugs were recovered, the record also supports the court’s finding that when defendant placed a paper bag containing drugs in a hat that was lying on a wall running along a public sidewalk, and walked away until stopped by the police, defendant abandoned the bag (see, People v RamirezPortoreal, 88 NY2d 99).

Since defendant’s prior Federal conviction pursuant to 21 USC § 841 (a) (1) is analogous to a New York felony, defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender. We continue to adhere to our previous holdings that the unavailability of the agency defense in a foreign jurisdiction has no bearing on whether a foreign felony qualifies as the equivalent of a New York felony (see, People v Roach, 255 AD2d 164, lv denied 92 NY2d 1053; People v Rexach, 220 AD2d 362, lv denied 87 NY2d 924). While the Federal statute encompasses marihuana offenses that would not be felonies in New York, the court properly resorted to the accusatory instrument to determine that defendant’s Federal conviction did not involve marihuana (see, People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586).

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (c) was properly denied as untimely. Nothing [144] prevented defendant from making a timely motion. Instead of making such a motion, defendant chose to plead guilty, and made no motion until months later, after he had withdrawn his plea. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

People v. Reilly, 273 A.D.2d 143, 711 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

273 A.D.2d 143 (People v. Reilly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related