People v Simmons

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Simmons 2019 NY Slip Op 34228(U) December 18, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 2601/15 Judge: Robert M. Stolz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] KSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, -against- Ind. No. 2601/15 DECISION AND ORDER BRANDON SIMMONS, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERT M. STOLZ, J., The Defendant, Brandon Simmons, was convicted, following a guilty plea, of Assault in the First Degree, in violation of PL § 120. 10( I). The plea arose out of defe ndant's shooting of the victim qn May 21 , 2015. On September 20, 20 16, he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, I 1, to a term of im prisonment of twelve years with five years of post-release supervision . Prior to defendant's plea, the People filed a predicate felony statement al leging that on August 4, 2011, defendant was convicted in Pe1msylvania of the fe lony of Possession with Intent to Manufacture or Deliver, in violation of 35 Pa. Stat §780-l l 3(a)(30). In response, defendant' s then atto rney fi led a motion chal lenging the pred icate statement on the ground that it was not .the "strict equivale nt" of New York's corresponding statutes, Criminal Possession of a ;t .l ' Controlled Substance in the Third and Fi fth Degrees. More specifically, defendant argued that, unlike its New York counterparts, the Pennsylvania statute did not require that the acc used acted "know ingly and unlawf1.Illy" in order to violate it. The People opposed the motion . On June 29, 2016, l ruled orally that defendant was in fact a second felo ny offender, citi ng People v. Mule ro, 251 AD2d 252 (1 st Dept), Iv. den. 92 NY2d 928 (1998) (holding that 35 Pa. Stat §780- l l 3(a)(30), like its New York counterparts Criminal Possession of a Controlled [* 2] Substance in the Third and Fifth degrees requires "knowing" and not merely "reckless" mens rea with respect to the possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute). The defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the judgment should be reversed , raising the above described mens rea issue, and also that he had not been adjudicated a predicate felon. On June 27, 20 I 9, the Appellate Divi sion vacated defendant's sentence on the ground that he had not been arraigned as a second fe lony offender and therefore had been denied the right to controvert the predicate statement. The Court, however, also citing People v. Mulero, supra, upheld this Court's determination of defendant's predicate status. Tn doing so, the Appellate Division expressly stated that defendant "was a second felony offender based on bi s Pennsy lvania conviction, [adhering] to our previous determination (expressed not as 'dicta' but as what was intended to be an alternative holding), that the Pennsylvania statute in issue. is the equivalent of a New York felony." People v. Simmons, 173 AD3d 646 (1 st Dept 2019) (emphasis added). The matter was remanded for a predicate felon adjudication and re-sentencing. On September 11 , 2019, the parties appeared before me, and defendant requested an opportunity once again to challenge the predicate statement on the basi s of hi s Pennsylvania conviction. That request was granted, and on September 19, 2019 counsel filed papers, arguing that: 1) the Pennsylvania statute has a " more forg iving" mens rea requirement because it criminalizes knowledge only that one is in possession of a controlled substance, while New York's equivalent statutes require knowledge of which controlled substance was possessed; 2) that the Pennsylvania statute outlaws certain substances which are not outlawed in New York and; 3) that the Court should not examine the underlying criminal complaint to determine how defendant violated the Pe1msylvania statute, but only compare the language of the foreign statute -2- [* 3] . to its New York equivalent. Discussion PL §70.06 (l)(b)(i) provides that: [fJor the pw-pose of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony conviction the following criteria shall apply: (i) [t]he conviction must have been in this state of a fe lony or in any other jurisdiction of a1J offense for which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized in this state irrespective of whether such sentence was imposed. Because New York authorizes a prison sentence in excess of one year only for felo nies, the Court must determine whether defendant's foreign conviction is equ ivalent to a New York fe lony before he may be adjudicated a second felony offender. People v. Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 613 / (2016); People v. Gonzalez, 6 1 NY2d 586, 592 (1984) People v. Muniz, 74 NY2d 464,467 ( 1989). In addition, the Court must also determine, as required by CPL §400.21 (2), whether the foreign offense was in fact punishable by "a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or death." Generally, in determining whether a defendant qualifies for predicate felony status based upon a foreign conviction, a court is limited by a comparison of the language of the foreign statute with the "eq uivale nt" New York statute. People v. Olah, 300 NY 96, 98 (1949). However, an exception to this constraint exists when the foreign statute criminalizes several different acts, "some of which would constitute fe lonies and others of which would constitute only misdemeanors if committed in New York." People v. Jurgins, supra at 6 13 (20 16). In such cases, the Court must look beyond the statute and examine the accusatory instrument and any other relevant documents which describe the particular act or acts und erlyi ng the charge. People v. Muniz, ,, - .) - [* 4] supra at 468 ; see also, People ex. rel., Gold v. Jackson, 5 NY2d 243 at 246 [1 959]; People v. Gonzalez, supra at 591 ( 1984). That exception applies here. The statute at issue, 35 Pa. Stat §780- l 13(a)(3 0), prohibits: the manufacture, delivery or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance . . . or knowingly, creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance." As the People point out, however, the delivering or possessing with intent to deliver a counterfeit controlled substance can be either a misdemeanor or a felony under New York's equivalent statu te, Public Health Law §3383. Subdivision (2) of that section provid es that "[T]t shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell or possess with the intent to sell, an imitation controlled substance." Subsection (7) of the statute provides that " [A) violation of subdivi sion two or tlu·ee of this statute shall be a class A mi sdemeanor. A vio lation of subdivision two or three of this section by a person previou sly convicted of this section within the preceding five years shall be a class E felony." Under these circumstances, the propri ety of using the foreign conviction cannot be determined from a facial comparison of the statutes because possess ing an imitation controlled substance is a felony in Pe1msylvania, but in most instances, is only a misdem eanor in New York. Accordingly, I must examine the Pennsylvania accusatory instrument and any other relevant )I L I documents underlying defendant 's co nviction . See People v. Thompson, 11 AD3d 295 (1 st Dept 2004), Iv.den. 3 NY3d 761 (2004)(in adjudicating defendant a second felony offender court properly consulted the foreign accusatory instrument to determine whether hi s conviction under 35 Pa. Stat §780-1 13(30)(a) was for possession of a controlled substance or possession of a counterfeit controlled substance); see also People v. Diaz 11 5 A.D.3d 483 (1 st Dept. 2014), Iv. den. 23 NY3d -4- [* 5] 103 (2014). I have examined the accusatory instrument submitted by the People, titled Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Brandon Michael Simmons, Criminal Action No. CP-392179/11. It reflects that defendant pleaded guilty to count one. That count clearly and unambiguously states that at the time and place of the offense defendant did "knowingly or intentionally possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance to wit: COCAINE." I have also examined the underlying Pennsylvania "Criminal Complaint," which includes an "Affidavit of Probable Cause" by one of the officers involved in defendant's arrest. That affidavit plainly states that the substances recovered from defendant field-tested positive for crack cocaine and powder cocaine. In addition, the People have submitted a September 13 , 2011, sentencing document, signed by the Pennsylvania Court, stating that with respect to "Criminal Action No . CP-39-2179/ 11, the defendant, Brandon Simmons, is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period ofnot less than 18 months nor more than 60 months." Thus, the People have established that the crime for which defendant was convicted in Pennsylvania was for possessing cocaine, not a counterfeit substance, and, that under Pennsylvania law, that crime is punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of one year. Accordingly, the motion is denied. The defendant will be re-sentenced as a second felony offender. This shall constitute the decision and order of the Court. Dated: December 18, 2019 PT. 72 DEC 1 8 20t9 -5- •

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.