The People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Ballman
| Decision Date | 10 June 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent,v.Daniel J. BALLMAN, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
Daniel J. BALLMAN, Respondent-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
June 10, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Shirley A. Gorman, Brockport, for respondent-appellant.
This appeal raises the issue whether Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) allows an out-of-state conviction occurring prior to November 1, 2006 to be considered for purposes of elevating a charge of driving while intoxicated from a misdemeanor to a felony. We hold that it does not.
Defendant was indicted for driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]; § 1193[1][c] ) and for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) for acts committed on February 22, 2007. As the basis for elevating defendant's driving while intoxicated charge to a felony, the People filed a special information charging that defendant had a 1999 conviction for driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration in the state of Georgia (Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-391), which would have been a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2) had it occurred in New York.
Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment raising several arguments, including that the date of the Georgia conviction rendered it ineligible to serve as a predicate for elevating the charge to driving while intoxicated as a felony. County Court denied the motion, finding that the legislative intent behind Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) was to treat prior out-of-state convictions as if they were prior convictions for the same actions occurring in New York State. The same court denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence against him and defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated as a felony in full satisfaction of the indictment.
The Appellate Division reversed, vacated the plea, dismissed the first count of the indictment for felony driving while intoxicated without prejudice to the People to represent appropriate charges, reinstated the second count of the indictment for obstructing governmental administration and remitted to County Court for further proceedings on that second count (64 A.D.3d 9, 877 N.Y.S.2d 771 [4th Dept.2009] ). The Court determined that, based on the language of the 2006 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) and its enabling language, convictions occurring prior to the November 1, 2006 effective date of the statute, including defendant's 1999 Georgia conviction, could not be used
At issue here is the interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8), as amended in 2006. The statute reads as follows:
“A prior out-of-state conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs shall be deemed to be a prior conviction of a violation of this section for purposes of determining penalties imposed under this section ... provided, however, that such conduct, had it occurred in this state, would have constituted a misdemeanor or felony violation of any of the provisions of this section” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[8] ).
The subdivision further provides that, if the out-of-state conduct would have been a violation of section 1192 had it occurred instate, but would not have constituted a misdemeanor or a felony, the conduct will be deemed a prior conviction of driving while ability impaired for purposes of determining the appropriate penalties ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [8] ).
The enabling language accompanying the amendment specifies that
“[t]he provisions of [Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) ], as it existed prior to the amendment made by ... this act, shall apply only to convictions occurring on or after November 29, 1985 through and including October 31, 2006 and provided, further, that the provisions of [Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) ] as amended by ... this act shall apply only to convictions occurring on or after November 1, 2006” (L. 2006, ch. 231, § 2).
The amendment took effect on November 1, 2006 (L. 2006, ch. 231, § 3).
The dispute centers on the meaning of the term “convictions” in the enabling language-whether it applies to domestic or prior out-of-state convictions. “When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, our primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature” ( Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, 7 N.Y.3d 653, 660, 827 N.Y.S.2d 88, 860 N.E.2d 705 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Although the text itself is generally the best evidence of legislative intent, where “the language is ambiguous, we may examine the statute's legislative history” ( Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 270, 286, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900 [2009] ). Here, the enabling language presents such an ambiguity.
In order to best understand the 2006 amendments, it is helpful to trace the evolution of this subdivision. The initial version of this provision, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(7), was enacted in 1985 to allow prior out-of-state convictions for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol to be considered when determining appropriate penalties for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ballman
...N.Y.S.2d 36115 N.Y.3d 68930 N.E.2d 282The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent,v.Daniel J. BALLMAN, Respondent-Appellant.Court of Appeals of New York.June 10, 2010.904 N.Y.S.2d 362 R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Catherine A. Walsh of counsel), for appe......