THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. HUGHVAL ANTHONY MCINTOSH, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 87, 600 N.E.2d 199, 587 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1992).
July 1, 1992
2 No. 151
Decided July 1, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Joseph A. Gentile, for Appellant.
John F. McGlynn, for Respondent.
TITONE, J.:
This appeal concerns the ongoing effect, if any, that a CPL 450.50(1)
statement has after an appeal taken by the People pursuant to CPL
450.20(8) has been withdrawn with the permission of the appellate
court.
Following the trial court's decision to suppress certain evidence that
the People had intended to introduce at defendant's trial, the People
filed a notice of appeal along with the required CPL 450.50(1)
statement, which asserted that the suppression order "rendered the sum
of proof available to the People * * * either legally insufficient or
so weak in its entirety that any reasonable probability of obtaining a
conviction * * * has been effectively destroyed" (see, CPL 450.20(8)).
Approximately six weeks later, however, the People moved for leave to
withdraw their appeal, asserting in an affidavit that "the matter has
been further reviewed and it has been determined that although the
People's case has been considerably weakened by the suppression order,
a trial of the defendant is the most appropriate procedural avenue."
The People's motion for leave to withdraw the appeal was granted by
order of the Appellate Division dated October 16, 1989, and the appeal
was, in fact, withdrawn.
After the appeal's withdrawal, defendant moved in the trial court for
dismissal of the indictment. Relying on CPL 450.50(2) and this Court's
decision in Matter of Forte v Supreme Court (48 NY2d 179), defendant
argued that the People's CPL 450.50(1) was binding on them and that
further prosecution of the indictment was now foreclosed. The trial
court adopted defendant's argument and dismissed the indictment. The
Appellate Division, however, reversed and reinstated the indictment.
Citing some of the language used in Matter of Forte v Supreme Court
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. HUGHVAL ANTHONY MCINTOSH, APPELLANT.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
This appeal concerns the ongoing effect, if any, that a CPL 450.50statement has after an
Following the trial court's decision to suppress certain evidence that the People had
Approximately six weeks later, however, the People moved for leave to withdraw their appeal,
The People's motion for leave to withdraw the appeal was granted by order of the Appellate
defendant moved in the trial court for dismissal of the indictment.
Relying on CPL 450.50and this Court's decision in Matter of Forte v Supreme Court (48 NY2d
Citing some of the language used in Matter of Forte v Supreme Court and People v Kates, the
The purpose of these interlocking provisions is to limit appeals by the People from
We note that the appellate courts remain free to deny permission to withdraw an appeal,
Opinion by Judge Titone.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
|
