Matter of Stewart v. Hartnett
Decision Date | 30 November 2006 |
Docket Number | 500130. |
Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 08845,824 N.Y.S.2d 786,34 A.D.3d 1134 |
Parties | In the Matter of CHARLES STEWART, Petitioner, v. DAVID S. HARTNETT, as Cortland County District Attorney, et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In November 2000, petitioner was charged in a Cortland County indictment with the crimes of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child based upon his alleged sexual contact with the then nine-year-old victim. Following a jury trial, at which the testimony offered by the young victim was the only evidence implicating petitioner in the crimes, petitioner was convicted on all counts.
Thereafter, in July 2005, this Court reversed the judgment of conviction finding, insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, that County Court committed reversible error in denying petitioner's request to submit the issue of venue to the jury as a factual question (People v Stewart, 20 AD3d 769, 771 [2005]). Specifically, we held: (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). For this and other reasons, we remitted the matter for a new trial.
In February 2006, petitioner moved by order to show cause for a stay of the scheduled April 2006 prosecution and commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to prohibit respondents from retrying him on the previous indictment. Specifically, petitioner argued that County Court lacked geographical jurisdiction over counts two through five of the indictment and, further, that retrying him on the prior indictment violated the principles of double jeopardy. This Court subsequently denied petitioner's application for a stay, and the matter is now before us for review.
Preliminarily, petitioner is correct in noting that a writ of prohibition is a proper remedy to challenge both County Court's alleged lack of geographical jurisdiction and petitioner's claim that further prosecution would subject him to double jeopardy (see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353-354 [1986]; Matter of Gorghan v DeAngelis, 25 AD3d 872, 873 [2006], affd 7 NY3d 470 [2006]; Matter of Cohen v Lotto, 19 AD3d 485, 486 [2005]; Matter of McLaughlin v Eidens, 292 AD2d 712, 713 [2002]). We nonetheless conclude that the requested writ should not be granted.
Because we did not determine in petitioner's prior appeal that County Court lacked geographical jurisdiction, but rather that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoffler v. Jacon
...( see Matter of Di Lorenzo v. Murtagh, 36 N.Y.2d 306, 309-310, 367 N.Y.S.2d 761, 327 N.E.2d 805 [1975]; Matter of Stewart v. Hartnett, 34 A.D.3d 1134, 1136, 824 N.Y.S.2d 786 [2006], appeal dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 936, 834 N.Y.S.2d 505, 866 N.E.2d 451 [2007] ). Nonetheless, a petitioner must "dem......
-
People v. Retell
...997 N.Y.S.2d 205 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1002, 38 N.Y.S.3d 111, 59 N.E.3d 1223 [2016] ; Matter of Stewart v. Hartnett, 34 A.D.3d 1134, 1136, 824 N.Y.S.2d 786 [3d Dept. 2006], appeal dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 936, 834 N.Y.S.2d 505, 866 N.E.2d 451 [2007] ). Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, ......
- Matter of Roye v. Goord