People v. Fehr, 76 N.Y.2d 83 (1990)
A withdrawn appeal by the People from a suppression order, with the permission of the appellate court, renders the accompanying CPL 450.50(1) statement a nullity, removing the statutory bar to further prosecution.
Summary
This case addresses whether a CPL 450.50(1) statement, filed by the People when appealing a suppression order, remains binding after the appeal is withdrawn with the court’s permission. The Court of Appeals held that a withdrawn appeal is a nullity, and the accompanying CPL 450.50(1) statement is also withdrawn, thereby removing the bar to further prosecution. The Court emphasized that appellate courts retain the discretion to deny withdrawal requests if they suspect prosecutorial bad faith or abuse of the withdrawal option.
Facts
Following a trial court’s decision to suppress evidence, the People filed a notice of appeal and a CPL 450.50(1) statement, asserting the suppression order rendered their case insufficient. Approximately six weeks later, the People moved to withdraw their appeal, stating that while their case was weakened, a trial was still the most appropriate avenue. The Appellate Division granted the motion and the appeal was withdrawn.
Procedural History
After the appeal’s withdrawal, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the CPL 450.50(1) statement barred further prosecution. The trial court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the indictment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the act of taking an appeal with a CPL 450.50(1) statement bars further prosecution, even if the appeal is subsequently withdrawn with the court’s permission?
Holding
No, because an appeal that has been withdrawn with the permission of the court is a nullity. Consequently, a withdrawn appeal is not an appeal that has been “taken” within the meaning of CPL 450.50(2), and the bar to further prosecution contemplated by that statute is not applicable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that CPL 450.20(8) and 450.50(1) are designed to limit appeals by the People to cases where the suppression order effectively ends the prosecution. While CPL 450.50(2) states that “[t]he taking of an appeal…constitutes a bar to the prosecution,” the Court held that a withdrawn appeal is a nullity. The court reasoned that because the appeal was withdrawn with the Appellate Division’s permission, the accompanying CPL 450.50(1) statement was also withdrawn and had no further legal effect. The Court emphasized the appellate courts’ power to deny withdrawal requests in cases of prosecutorial bad faith or abuse, and noted that a withdrawn appeal cannot be the basis for excluding time under CPL 30.30 (speedy trial). The Court stated, “[I]f the appellate court has authorized the withdrawal of an appeal, the accompanying CPL 450.50 (1) statement is necessarily withdrawn along with it and, in consequence, it is of no further legal significance.”