99 N.Y.2d 76 (2002)
A double jeopardy claim based on multiple punishments for a single act requires preservation for appellate review; the permissibility of multiple punishments arising from a single act is a question of statutory interpretation dependent on legislative intent.
Summary
Defendants Gonzalez and Lopez were convicted of drug sale offenses based on single transactions, leading to concurrent sentences. They argued that these convictions violated double jeopardy protections against multiple punishments for the same offense. The New York Court of Appeals held that such double jeopardy claims require preservation at trial because they turn on statutory interpretation and legislative intent, unlike claims of successive prosecutions which implicate the court’s jurisdiction. Since neither defendant preserved their claim, the court declined to review it. The court affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction and Lopez’s conviction (though Smith, J., dissented on evidentiary grounds in Lopez’s case).
Facts
In People v. Gonzalez, an undercover officer asked Gonzalez where to buy drugs. Gonzalez directed the officer to another individual, Sepulveda, near a school. Sepulveda sold heroin to the officer. Gonzalez was arrested, but no drugs were found on him.
In People v. Lopez, an undercover officer asked Lopez for heroin. Lopez directed the officer to Rennock, who sold the heroin inside a nearby building 420 feet from a school. Lopez was arrested 20 minutes later, but no drugs or buy money were recovered from him.
Procedural History
Gonzalez was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Lopez was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Appellate Division modified by vacating one possession conviction and affirmed.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant’s claim that convictions for multiple offenses arising from a single act violate double jeopardy by resulting in multiple punishments, requires preservation for appellate review.
Holding
No, because a double jeopardy claim alleging multiple punishments arising from a single act implicates a question of statutory interpretation and legislative intent, which must be preserved for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished between double jeopardy claims involving successive prosecutions (which affect the court’s jurisdiction and need not be preserved) and those involving multiple punishments for a single act. The Court reasoned that the latter type of claim turns on whether the legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments, a matter of statutory interpretation. Quoting Missouri v. Hunter, the court stated, “As long as the Legislature intended to impose cumulative punishments for a single offense, `a court’s task of statutory construction is at an end’ and no constitutional double jeopardy claim is implicated.” The Court emphasized that a determination of legislative intent requires a defendant to preserve the issue for appeal. Since neither Gonzalez nor Lopez raised their double jeopardy claims at trial, the Court declined to address them.
Judge Smith concurred in Gonzalez’s case but dissented in Lopez’s. Smith argued that all double jeopardy claims, including those related to multiple punishments, are fundamental and do not require preservation. Smith would have reached the merits of the double jeopardy claims, ultimately rejecting them based on the legislature’s intent to permit convictions for both offenses. However, Smith dissented in Lopez’s case because the introduction of expert testimony was unnecessary and prejudicial.