 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPEALS APPELLATE TERM DISMISSING ARREST COURT WARRANT STATUTE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PURSUANT COMPLAINT JUDGE LEGISLATURE NY2D WESLEY PUBLICATION OPINION RESPONDENT FIRST OPPORTUNITY ARRAIGNMENT LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT FELONY COMPLAINT UNDERLYING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONTRAST AUTHORIZES CITATIONS LAING PLAINER INCORPORATIONS NUMERICAL REFERENCES |
AppT No. 40
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Bulmaro Hernandez,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 56
May 7, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Deepa Rajan, for appellant.
Suzanne M. Herbert, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
WESLEY, J.:
As the result of a warrantless arrest, defendant was charged in a
misdemeanor complaint with consumption of alcohol in a public place,
disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The trial court dismissed the
complaint pursuant to CPL 140.45. That section requires dismissal when
an accusatory instrument filed pursuant to warrantless arrest
provisions is facially insufficient and the "court is satisfied that
on the basis of the available facts or evidence it would be impossible
to draw and file" a sufficient accusatory instrument (CPL 140.45). The
People appealed pursuant to CPL 450.20(1) and the Appellate Term
reversed and reinstated the accusatory instrument. The Appellate Term
was in error.
No appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding
unless specifically provided for by statute (see People v Stevens, ,
91 NY2d 270, 277 (1998)). In the context of CPL 450.20, we have
stated that "(c)ourts must construe clear and unambiguous statutes as
enacted and may not resort to interpretive contrivances to broaden the
scope and application of statutes. This is especially so in one of the
most highly structured and highly particularized articles of procedure
-- appeals. Where a statute delineates the particular situations in
which it is to apply, 'an irrefutable inference must be drawn that
what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or
excluded.' The words and numerical references and incorporations in
CPL 450.20 could not be plainer * * *" (People v Laing, , 79 NY2d
166, 170-171 (1992) (citations omitted)).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
