From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McMillan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 1987
134 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 25, 1987

Appeal from the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.).


Defendant, then an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, was indicted for promoting prison contraband in the first degree based upon his alleged possession of an eight-inch metal shank. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and was sentenced to a term of 1 1/2 to 3 years' imprisonment, to run consecutively with the term he was then serving. Defendant appeals that judgment, claiming, inter alia, that the State did not provide him with a copy of the appropriate rule book defining contraband, thereby violating Correction Law § 138 (2), (3) and (5) and his constitutional right to due process.

Defendant's appeal fails for several reasons. First, his guilty plea effects a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects such as the one asserted here (see, People v. Brown, 123 A.D.2d 473, 474; see also, People v. Motley, 69 N.Y.2d 870). Second, Correction Law § 138 is concerned with discipline for violations of institutional rules and is not applicable to prosecutions for statutory violations (People v. Quintana, 71 A.D.2d 764, 765). Third, the regulations incorporated by reference into the statute defendant was charged with violating (Penal Law § 205.25; § 205.00 [4]) were filed with the Secretary of State prior to the alleged infraction by defendant (NY Const, art IV, § 8). Further, defendant's claim, advanced for the first time on appeal, that he did not receive the institutional regulations which are routinely distributed to prisoners (see, People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 701, 703) finds no basis in the record. Furthermore, during the plea colloquy, defendant, who had been convicted once before on the charge of attempted promoting prison contraband, admitted knowing that a shank found in his possession was contraband (see, People v. Motley, supra, at 872-873). We therefore find no due process violation.

We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them also lacking in merit.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. McMillan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 1987
134 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. McMillan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAMAR McMILLAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 25, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Sardinas

The court properly denied defendant's request to compel disclosure of the informant's identity because…