PEOPLE, res, v. DAVON WHITE, def-ap

9834. PEOPLE, res, v. DAVON WHITE, def-ap — Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for ap — Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David P. Johnson of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J. at plea; John Collins, J. at sentencing), rendered March 18, 2011, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed. The sentencing court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea (see generally People v. Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The motion was based entirely on postplea information about a testing chemist's misconduct, which allegedly undermined the People's ability to prove the identity of the drugs defendant sold. This information did not tend to establish defendant's innocence. Instead, it constituted impeachment material (see People v. Holloway, 33 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 902 [2006]).

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9834. PEOPLE, res, v. DAVON WHITE, def-ap — Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for ap — Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David P. Johnson of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J. at plea; John Collins, J. at sentencing), rendered March 18, 2011, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed. The sentencing court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (see generally People v. Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The motion was based entirely on postplea information about a testing chemist’s misconduct, which allegedly undermined the People’s ability to prove the identity of the drugs defendant sold. This information did not tend to establish defendant’s innocence. Instead, it constituted impeachment material (see People v. Holloway, 33 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 902 [2006]).

Furthermore, the People assured the court that they could have still established the identity of the drugs by way of several forms of untainted evidence. “[T]he nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures on such motions rest largely in the discretion of the court” (People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 544 [1993]). Accordingly, the sentencing court was not obligated to conduct a minitrial on the issue of the identity of the drugs.

PEOPLE, res, v. DAVON WHITE, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal