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. Pedro BONNET, a/k/a Chris Savino, a/k/a Jesus Espada, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered July 15, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1 1/212 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's conviction was not jurisdictionally defective (compare, People v. D'Amico, 76 N.Y.2d 877, 561 N.Y.S.2d 411, 562 N.E.2d 488, with People v. Boston, 75 N.Y.2d 585, 555 N.Y.S.2d 27, 554 N.E.2d 64). Defendant's waiver of indictment and prosecution by superior court information were valid, even though defendant had already been indicted, because the court had dismissed the indictment in its entirety while granting the People leave to re-present the charges (see, CPL 210.45[9] ). This placed defendant back on a “formal pre-indictment procedural track” (People v. Casdia, 78 N.Y.2d 1024, 1026, 576 N.Y.S.2d 75, 581 N.E.2d 1330) prior to the use of the superior court information procedure (CPL 195.10; People v. Noe, 170 A.D.2d 1029, 566 N.Y.S.2d 897, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 909, 569 N.Y.S.2d 941, 572 N.E.2d 624). Moreover, the People also filed a new felony complaint containing the new charge of attempted fifth-degree possession.
Summary denial of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence was proper since the factual allegations set forth in defendant's motion papers were insufficient to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing (see, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017). Defendant's denial of unlawful activity “at any time prior to his arrest” failed to address the People's specific contention that defendant had sold drugs to an undercover officer, and defendant did not assert any other basis for suppression (see, People v. Jones, 95 N.Y.2d 721, 723 N.Y.S.2d 761, 746 N.E.2d 1053; compare, People v. Hightower, 85 N.Y.2d 988, 990, 629 N.Y.S.2d 164, 652 N.E.2d 910).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 29, 2001
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)