People v. Ramos

• Decision Date: 12 June 2012
• Citation: 948 N.Y.S.2d 239,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04669,971 N.E.2d 369,19 N.Y.3d 417
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gilberto RAMOS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

19 N.Y.3d 417
971 N.E.2d 369
948 N.Y.S.2d 239
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04669

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Gilberto RAMOS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 12, 2012.

Legal Aid Society, New York City (Laura Boyd and Steven Banks of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Sean T. Masson and Sylvia Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.

[19 N.Y.3d 418]OPINION OF THE COURT
SMITH, J.

[971 N.E.2d 369][1] We hold that, under New York's “strict equivalency” standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes.

[948 N.Y.S.2d 240]

[971 N.E.2d 370]Defendant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of third degree robbery, a felony (Penal Law § 160.05). He was sentenced as a second felony offender, on the basis of a previous conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of [19 N.Y.3d 419]New York of conspiracy to distribute heroin, and to possess it with intent to distribute (21 USC § 846, 21 USC § 841[a][1] ). The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction and sentence, rejecting the argument that he was improperly adjudicated a predicate felon ( People v. Ramos, 80 A.D.3d 537, 914 N.Y.S.2d 897 [1st Dept.2011] ). A Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal (17 N.Y.3d 821, 929 N.Y.S.2d 809, 954 N.E.2d 100 [2011] ), and we now modify the Appellate Division's order.

Penal Law § 70.06(1)(b) says:

“For the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction the following criteria shall apply:

“(i) The conviction must have been in this state of a felony, or in any other jurisdiction of an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized and is authorized in this state.”

We have interpreted the words “is authorized in this state” to require that the crime of which the defendant was convicted in another jurisdiction include all the essential elements of a New York felony ( People v. Muniz, 74 N.Y.2d 464, 467–468, 548 N.Y.S.2d 633, 547 N.E.2d 1160 [1989] ). As a general rule (with an exception not relevant here), inquiry “is limited to a comparison of the crimes' elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes” ( id.). It is immaterial that the crime actually committed in the foreign jurisdiction may be the equivalent of a felony in New York, if the foreign statute would have permitted a conviction for conduct that did not amount to a New York felony ( see People v. Olah, 300...