From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mares

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 10, 1998
256 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 10, 1998

Appeal from the judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.).


Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment that included a charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. In exchange, he was sentenced to a prison term of 8 1/3 years to life. As part of the agreement, defendant entered his plea prior to filing pretrial motions. On this appeal, defendant contends that his inability to file pretrial motions deprived him of the right to seek judicial inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, a Process which might have revealed that there was an insufficient quantity of drugs in his possession at the time of his arrest to substantiate the most serious charge in the indictment, i.e., that of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. Had this proven to be the case, defendant argues, he would not have been induced to plead guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

This contention lacks merit. A defendant who accepts a plea bargain surrenders the right to challenge the factual basis for the plea and, in addition, is precluded from thereafter challenging the merits of charges that were dismissed in the course of plea bargain negotiations ( see, People v. Morelli, 228 A.D.2d 818, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 990; see also, People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 108).

We also reject the argument that defendant's sentence of 8 1/3 years to life was harsh and excessive. The record discloses that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea and in exchange therefor three other charges against him were dismissed. Defendant's guilt of the crime of which he was convicted is uncontested. We conclude that the sentence imposed by County Court cannot be characterized as an abuse of discretion, nor are there any extraordinary circumstances present that would lead us to disturb it ( see, People v. Thompson, 233 A.D.2d 615; People v. Smith, 210 A.D.2d 533, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1039).

CARDONA, P. J., MERCURE, SPAIN and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Mares

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 10, 1998
256 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Mares

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ORRO MARES, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 692

Citing Cases

People v. O'Byrne

The record reveals that drug packaging materials, balance scales, over $1,500 in cash and more than eight…

People v. Chester

The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the sentence imposed by County Court is harsh and excessive…