Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Douglass Jackson

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


February 25, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
DOUGLASS JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin McGrath, J.), rendered January 27, 2009, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.

Per curiam.

People v Jackson (Douglass)

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 25, 2011

PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Torres, JJ

Judgment of conviction (Kevin McGrath, J.), rendered January 27, 2009, reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument dismissed.

The allegations in the accusatory instrument charging defendant with disorderly conduct -- which the People correctly conceded were unclear -- failed to allege "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support" (Criminal Procedure Law § 100.15[3]), the requisite intent to cause "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" (Penal Law § 240.20; see People v Massey,29 Misc 3d 143[A],2010 NY Slip Op 52211[U] [2010]). Moreover, the accusatory instrument failed to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense of disorderly conduct (see generally People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 229 [2009]).

A key element of resisting arrest is the existence of "an authorized arrest" (Penal Law § 205.30; see People v Jensen, 86 NY2d 248, 253 [1995]). Since the accusatory instrument failed to demonstrate a basis for defendant's arrest, the arrest was not authorized, and the allegations charging him with resisting arrest were therefore legally insufficient (see People v Peacock, 68 NY2d 675, 676-677 [1986]; People v Parker, 33 NY2d 669, 670 [1973]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur Decision Date: February 25, 2011

20110225

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.