People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 06 June 1985 |
| Citation | 489 N.Y.S.2d 936,111 A.D.2d 945 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerald A. Keene, Elmira, for appellant.
James T. Hayden, Chemung County Dist. Atty., Elmira, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered November 19, 1982, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Defendant was an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility when, on August 18, 1982, he was found in possession of a razor blade. An institutional disciplinary proceeding was conducted which resulted in defendant receiving as punishment a loss of "good time". Defendant was subsequently indicted by a Chemung County Grand Jury and charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2 to 3 years.
On this appeal, defendant challenges his conviction on the ground that a criminal prosecution for an offense which has already been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding at a State detention facility violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, and, also, on the ground that Penal Law § 70.06 is unconstitutional in that its mandatory sentence requirement denies equal protection under both the United States and New York State Constitutions.
This court has recently addressed both issues. A disciplinary determination imposing a loss of good time does not bar criminal prosecution of an inmate based on the same act (People v. Medina, App.Div. 489 N.Y.S.2d 937 People v. Briggs, App.Div., 485 N.Y.S.2d 861 ). Further, there is no constitutional infirmity to the second felony offender statute (People v. Saxbury, 95 A.D.2d 871, 872, 464 N.Y.S.2d 43).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peale
...find his challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 70.06 to be without merit, as we have in the past (see, People v. Davis, 111 A.D.2d 945, 946, 489 N.Y.S.2d 936; People v. Saxbury, 95 A.D.2d 871, 872, 464 N.Y.S.2d With regard to the sentence imposed by County Court, we find that su......