People v. Medina

• Decision Date: 06 June 1985
• Citation: 489 N.Y.S.2d 937,111 A.D.2d 946
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis MEDINA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 937

489 N.Y.S.2d 937

111 A.D.2d 946

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis MEDINA, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

June 6, 1985.

Robert L. Miller, Waverly, for appellant.

James T. Hayden, Chemung County Dist. Atty., Elmira, for respondent.

MAHONEY, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered March 26, 1984, 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 October 2, 1983, he was involved in a fight. He allegedly stabbed another inmate with a sharp instrument and then disposed of the weapon by throwing it into a garbage can. Defendant was indicted on December 1, 1983 and charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree. He pleaded guilty, without admitting guilt, to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2 to 3 years to run consecutive to the term he was then serving. Defendant has appealed, his primary contention being that prosecution of the indictment is barred by the fact that, at a Superintendent's proceeding conducted on October 7, 1983, he was found not guilty of charges based on the same incident.

Initially, we reject defendant's claim that this criminal prosecution is barred by double jeopardy (see People v. Davis, App.Div., 489 N.Y.S.2d 936 People v. Briggs, App.Div., 108 A.D.2d 1058).

Defendant also argues that the prior acquittal on the same charges at the Superintendent's proceeding precludes the prosecution of this indictment under the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. In our view, the record is inadequate to make a determination of whether the elements of issue preclusion are satisfied. The record does not contain the decision made as a result of the Superintendent's proceeding, nor is there any evidence of what the exact charges were or what issues of fact were necessarily determined. Without more evidence, this court can only speculate about the preclusive effect, if any, of the Superintendent's proceeding. We note that defendant had the burden of establishing issue preclusion (see People v. Alvarez, 88 Misc.2d 709, 719, 389 N.Y.S.2d 980, affd. 78 A.D.2d 592, 432 N.Y.S.2d 39).

Defendant lastly argues that he was denied the effective assistance of co...