From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ferdinand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 2001
288 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

1999-03247

Argued June 15, 2001.

November 26, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered March 26, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Itamar J. Yeger, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Scott J. Splittgerber of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant's conviction in Tennessee is sufficient to serve as a predicate felony in New York, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County shall file its report with all deliberate speed.

The defendant's status as a predicate felon was based upon his conviction of escape in Tennessee. To be used as a predicate for enhanced sentencing in New York, an out-of-state felony conviction must also be a felony in New York (see, People v. Sailor, 65 N.Y.2d 224, cert denied 474 U.S. 982; People v. Gonzalez, 61 N.Y.2d 586). The Tennessee escape statute under which the defendant was convicted (see, Tenn Code Annot § 39-16-605) criminalizes a number of different acts. If committed in New York State, some of those acts would constitute felonies and others would constitute only misdemeanors (see, People v. Muniz, 74 N.Y.2d 464, 468; People v. Gonzalez, supra, at 590-591; People v. Malanga, 201 A.D.2d 742). The Supreme Court did not specify which Penal Law section it found comparable to Tennessee's escape statute. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant's escape conviction in Tennessee was based upon acts which constitute a felony in New York (see, People v. York, 133 A.D.2d 130; People v. Scott, 111 A.D.2d 45), and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

We reach no other issue at this time.

S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ferdinand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 2001
288 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Ferdinand

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. RUSSELL FERDINAND, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 26, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 885

Citing Cases

People v. Anthony Grigg

Although the defendant's contention that his conviction of armed robbery in the State of Florida did not…

People v. Thomas

The People also correctly concede that it is unclear whether the defendant's 1997 New Jersey conviction for…