People v. Sutton
| Decision Date | 19 December 1983 |
| Citation | 98 A.D.2d 785,469 N.Y.S.2d 804 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gary SUTTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard J. Gardner, Jamaica, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Brian Bressman and Richard G. Denzer, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and O'CONNOR, WEINSTEIN and BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 27, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.
Appellant's conviction, as well as those of his codefendants, arose out of two robberies of Dunkin Donuts stores in Queens. The indictment charged appellant and his codefendants with robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree. At trial, the court, sua sponte, charged the jury as to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as defined in subdivision (4) of section 265.02 of the Penal Law. One of the elements of that crime is that the firearm be "loaded" within the meaning of subdivision 15 of section 265.00 of the Penal Law. That element of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was not an element of any of the crimes charged in the indictment and, accordingly, that crime should not have been charged to the jury (People v. Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427, 431, 452 N.Y.S.2d 389, 437 N.E.2d 1146). With commendable candor, the People concede that the error in the submission of this crime for the jury's consideration goes to subject matter jurisdiction and is not waivable (People ex rel. Gray v. Tekben, 86 A.D.2d 176, 180, 449 N.Y.S.2d 276, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 651, 454 N.Y.S.2d 66, 439 N.E.2d 875).
Since it appears that appellant has already served his sentence, we do not grant leave to the People to resubmit any appropriate charges to another Grand Jury (see People v. Burwell, 53 N.Y.2d 849, 440 N.Y.S.2d 177, 422 N.E.2d 822).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Roopchand
...for a new trial (CPL 470.20, subd. 1; People v. Allen, 39 N.Y.2d 916, 386 N.Y.S.2d 404, 352 N.E.2d 591; but cf. People v. Sutton, 98 A.D.2d 785, 469 N.Y.S.2d 804; People v. Fondal, 64 A.D.2d 638, 406 N.Y.S.2d While dismissal may be warranted where the charges "involved relatively minor crim......
-
People v. Rivera
...Penal Law § 265.02(4) is that the accused possess a "loaded firearm" (People v. Khan, 146 A.D.2d 806, 537 N.Y.S.2d 284; People v. Sutton, 98 A.D.2d 785, 469 N.Y.S.2d 804). Penal Law § 265.00(15) defines a "loaded firearm" as "any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is posses......
-
People v. Sapp
...conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was concededly jurisdictionally invalid (see People v. Sutton, 98 A.D.2d 785, 469 N.Y.S.2d 804 [decided herewith] At trial, the complainant, Diane Seymour, was allowed to testify as to her prior identification of appellant a......