From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 1997
244 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 3, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the oral application is denied, the count of burglary in the third degree is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The Supreme Court's reinspection of the Grand Jury minutes in the absence of a written motion is reversible error ( see, People v. Johnson, 134 A.D.2d 284). Moreover, the prior determination of another Justice denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment constituted the law of the case and was binding upon any Justice of coordinate jurisdiction ( see, People v. Johnson, 131 A.D.2d 696).

Although this Court is not bound by the prior determination as law of the case ( People v. Finley, 104 A.D.2d 450, adhered to on rearg, 107 A.D.2d 709), we agree that the count of burglary in the third degree should not have been reduced to attempted burglary in the third degree. The reviewing Justice erroneously applied a higher standard to determine whether the People's circumstantial evidence was sufficient ( see, People v Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103). In addition, the court did not have the power to reduce the charge in the interest of justice ( see, McDonald v. Sobel, 272 App. Div. 455, affd 297 N.Y. 679).

As the defendant correctly concedes, the withholding of the People's consent rendered the trial court without authority to accept a plea to anything less than the entire indictment ( see, People v. Esajerre, 35 N.Y.2d 463; People v. Guin, 243 A.D.2d 649; People v. Antonio, 176 A.D.2d 528; Matter of Gribetz v. Edelstein, 66 A.D.2d 788).

Given the foregoing, the count of burglary in the third degree is reinstated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings, including the making of an appropriate motion by the People to vacate the illegal plea of guilty.

Bracken, J. P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 1997
244 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

Matter of Attorney General, N.Y. v. Firetog

D'Ambrosio and Anne Mignola, the defendants in the underlying criminal action, in order to aid their…

People v. Thomas

People v. Finley, 104 AD2d 450 (2nd Dept., 1984) (GJ minutes), adhered to on rearg 107 AD2d 709; cited with…