People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 October 1980 |
| Citation | 78 A.D.2d 643,432 N.Y.S.2d 121 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Richard WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Robert S. Dean, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Hazel Sandomire Mushynsky, Brooklyn, of counsel, John Papa, on the brief), for respondent.
Before GIBBONS, J. P., and GULOTTA, MARGETT and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 24, 1978, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of assault in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender (see Penal Law, § 70.06) on the basis of a prior court-martial conviction rendered while he was serving in the Armed Forces. On appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of using court-martial convictions for enhanced sentencing purposes (see CPL 400.21).
Defendant argues that court-martial proceedings have inherent deficiencies which prevent them from affording the accused the full range of due process protections given to the accused in a criminal trial in the civilian sphere. These deficiencies were noted by the Supreme Court of the United States in O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S.Ct. 1683, 23 L.Ed.2d 291. Among the specific deficiencies noted by defendant are the broad powers of the convening officer to appoint both prosecuting and defense counsel (U.S. Code, tit. 10, § 827); to appoint the members of the court-martial (U.S. Code, tit. 10, § 825); and to appoint the military judge (U.S. Code, tit. 10, § 826). Defendant argues that although these deficiencies do not render court-martial convictions invalid, their validity is limited to those situations where they are serving the particular purpose of preserving military duty and discipline (see O'Callahan v. Parker, supra), and when used for a purpose other than to preserve military duty and discipline, such use is unconstitutional.
To support his argument, defendant relies upon a recent Supreme Court decision, Baldasar v. Illinois, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169, which held that a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid in and of itself, may not be used to impose an enhanced sentence upon defendant's conviction of a subsequent offense. The enhanced sentence of imprisonment would constitute an actual deprivation of liberty without having afforded the accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Clary
...also, People v. Roman, 176 A.D.2d 568, 574 N.Y.S.2d 742, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 863, 580 N.Y.S.2d 735, 588 N.E.2d 770; People v. Williams, 78 A.D.2d 643, 432 N.Y.S.2d 121). Additionally, under the comprehensive protection provided by CPL article 40, we have previously held that if the State p......
-
State v. Aronson
...State v. Bullock, 329 So.2d 733, 737 (La.1976); Muir v. State, 308 Md. 208, 517 A.2d 1105, 1109-10 (1986); People v. Williams, 78 A.D.2d 643, 432 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122-23 (1980); Millwood v. State, 721 P.2d 1322, 1324 (Okla.Crim.App.1986); Commonwealth v. Smith, 528 Pa. 380, 598 A.2d 268, 273-7......
-
Turner v. Com.
...did not err in considering prior court martial conviction in sentence because crime a felony in Louisiana); People v. Williams, 78 A.D.2d 643, 432 N.Y.S.2d 121 (N.Y.App.Div.1980) (permissible to use prior court-martial conviction to enhance sentence upon convicted felon); People v. Benjamin......
-
Esters v. State
...23 Cal.Rptr. 62 (1962); Scott v. United States, 392 A.2d 4 (D.C.1978); State v. Bullock, 329 So.2d 733 (La.1976); People v. Williams, 78 A.D.2d 643, 432 N.Y.S.2d 121 (1980); People v. Benjamin, 7 A.D.2d 410, 184 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1959), aff'd, 8 N.Y.2d 812, 168 N.E.2d 389, 202 N.Y.S.2d 320, cert.......