Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Miguel ROSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered December 20, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 31/212 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's conviction was not jurisdictionally defective. The court properly reinstated a previously dismissed indictment upon defendant's specific recommendation and accepted defendant's guilty plea under the reinstated indictment. There is no constitutional impediment to a court's power to modify its decisions provided those modifications do not subject the defendant to double jeopardy (Matter of Lionel F., 76 N.Y.2d 747, 559 N.Y.S.2d 228, 558 N.E.2d 30, cert. denied 498 U.S. 923, 111 S.Ct. 304, 112 L.Ed.2d 257), and a court has the authority to reinstate an indictment upon reargument without the necessity of a new Grand Jury presentation (People v. Lynch, 162 A.D.2d 134, 556 N.Y.S.2d 80, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 71, 564 N.E.2d 681). In this case, reinstatement of the indictment on defendant's motion was the equivalent of reargument. Moreover, defendant's decision to withdraw his previous dismissal motion reflected his wish to withdraw his objection to the denial of his right to testify before the Grand Jury and to proceed on the original instrument in return for a favorable disposition.
We find nothing in the factual recitations in defendant's plea allocutions that cast any doubt on his guilt (see, People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 05, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)