People v. Schoonmaker

• Decision Date: 15 January 1971
• Citation: 65 Misc.2d 393,317 N.Y.S.2d 696
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark R. SCHOONMAKER, Defendant Appellant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 696

317 N.Y.S.2d 696

65 Misc.2d 393

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark R. SCHOONMAKER, Defendant Appellant.

Greene County Court.

Jan. 15, 1971.

Alex Wiltse, Jr., Catskill, for defendant.

James C. Steenbergh, Dist. Atty., Greene Cty., for respondent.

DECISION

HENRY J. WERKER, Judge.

This is an appeal from judgments of conviction and sentences entered upon pleas of guilty before George E. Carl, Town Justice of the Town of Catskill, on July 1, 1970. The crimes with which defendant appellant was charged were wrongful possession of an instrument or implement adapted for the administering of narcotic drugs contrary to Section 3395, Subdivision 3 of the Public Health Law and wrongful Possession of a Dangerous Weapon contrary to Section 265.05, Subdivision 3 of the Penal Law of the State of New York.

The defendant appellant and his companions were arrested by a State Police officer at about 1:30 AM on July 1, 1970, at the Wishy Washy Laundromat on Route 9W in the Town of Coxsackie, Greene County, New York. The arresting officer before making the arrest searched the vehicle of defendant appellant and found therein a smoking pipe with a screen in it and a billy club.

Defendant appellant and his companions were brought to the New York State Police Barracks at Leeds, Town of Catskill, and there questioned, fingerprinted and photographed. At 6:30 AM on the same day he was arraigned before Judge Carl at the Police Barracks. Defendant appellant was advised as to his right to counsel and his right to a jury trial by Judge Carl. He pleaded to the charges after refusing counsel and a jury trial. The arresting officer informed Judge Carl that he could not locate a Town Justice in the Town of Coxsackie where the arrest took place. Based upon this information, Judge Carl took jurisdiction of the matters and arraigned the defendant appellant. Defendant appellant at the time of the alleged commission of the crime was under 19 years of age.

Upon this appeal, defendant appellant contends, a) that Judge Carl had no jurisdiction to enter judgment of conviction and sentence him under Section 2001 UJCA and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

b) that defendant appellant should have been advised that he could apply for youthful offender treatment; c) that a smoking pipe with a screen is not a narcotic implement within Section 3395, Subdivision 3 of the Public Health Law and, therefore, the information with respect to that charge is insufficient as a matter of law; d) that defendant appellant was not advised of the fact that if he had previously been convicted of a crime, possession of the billy club was a felony not a misdemeanor.

The jurisdictional question raised on this appeal is one that has plagued county courts over the years. (People v. Schur, 14 Misc.2d 944, 180 N.Y.S.2d 393; People v. Berzal, 26 Misc.2d 454, 208 N.Y.S.2d 842; People v. Holt, 59 Misc.2d 878, 300 N.Y.S.2d 624.)

The Uniform Justice Court Act, Section 2001 confers criminal jurisdiction upon Town Justices in the following language: a) 'Court of Special Sessions. The Court shall be a court of special sessions and shall have original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors and all offenses and violations of a grade less than a misdemeanor, including traffic infractions committed at any place Within the municipality.' (emphasis supplied)

Subdivision 35 of Section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure formerly provided that courts of special sessions had exclusive jurisdiction Within their respective counties. (emphasis supplied) This provision was repealed by Chapter 681 of the Laws of 1967 and the Uniform Justice Court Act became effective September 1, 1967.

The applicable portion of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for 'Place of arraignment and Proceedings thereon' reads as follows:

'If the defendant is arrested without a warrant for a misdemeanor, offense, infraction or violation of an ordinance, he must be taken immediately before an available magistrate of a town in the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed who is nearest or most accessible with reference to where said arrest is made.'

The jurisdiction of the Town Justice was limited by Section 2001 to misdemeanors and lesser crimes committed within the municipality. By definition, a town is a municipality. (Town Law § 2.) Therefore, the Town Justice of the Town of Catskill could acquire no jurisdiction to try or accept a plea of guilty with respect to a crime committed in the Town of Coxsackie. (People v. Wilder, 59 Misc.2d 561, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1005.) The case of People ex rel. Smoake v. Morrow, 58 Misc.2d 266, 294 N.Y.S.2d 586 holding that if the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter it may obtain jurisdiction of the person by submission to it has no applicability here since that case relates to the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Justice Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and although a person might submit to its jurisdiction, such submission may be made only after being informed of the right to object to the jurisdiction.

The Attorney General has rendered an opinion to the effect that Section 164 of the Code of...