New York Law Review

Tag: CPL 450.10

  • People v. Pollenz, 67 N.Y.2d 264 (1986): Legislative Limits on Appellate Jurisdiction

    People v. Pollenz, 67 N.Y.2d 264 (1986)

    A statute that disallows an appeal as of right to the Appellate Division based solely on the excessiveness of a negotiated sentence imposed after a guilty plea unconstitutionally limits the Appellate Division’s jurisdiction.

    Summary

    This case addresses the constitutionality of CPL 450.10, which attempted to prevent appeals to the Appellate Division based solely on the excessiveness of negotiated sentences after a guilty plea. The Court of Appeals held that this statute violated Article VI, § 4(k) of the New York Constitution, which protects the Appellate Division’s jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the statute impermissibly limited the Appellate Division’s duty to hear appeals from final judgments, a duty that existed before the constitutional provision and was therefore protected from legislative curtailment. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the appeals and remitted the cases for determination.

    Facts

    Two defendants, Pollenz and Minor, appealed their sentences to the Appellate Division, arguing that their negotiated sentences were excessive. The Appellate Division, relying on CPL 450.10, dismissed their appeals because the statute purported to disallow appeals based solely on the excessiveness of a negotiated sentence imposed upon a guilty plea.

    Procedural History

    The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals based on CPL 450.10. The defendants then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether CPL 450.10, which disallows an appeal as of right to the Appellate Division where the sole issue is the excessiveness of a negotiated sentence imposed after a guilty plea, imposes an unconstitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division under Article VI, § 4(k) of the New York Constitution.

    Holding

    Yes, because CPL 450.10 imposes a limitation on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in contravention of NY Constitution, article VI, § 4 (k).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that CPL 450.10 unconstitutionally limited the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division. The court reasoned that Article VI, § 4(k) of the New York Constitution prohibits the legislature from curtailing the Appellate Division’s jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments, including those rendered upon guilty pleas imposing negotiated sentences. The court emphasized that this duty to entertain appeals was “constitutionalized” by prior constitutional provisions. The court rejected the People’s argument that “jurisdiction” only relates to the power to decide a case, not the duty to hear it, citing precedents indicating that jurisdiction encompasses the duty to consider appeals brought as of right.

    The court cited People v. Kevlon, where it had previously held that the absence of compliance with a statute requiring a certificate for appeals to the Court of Appeals meant the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court analogized this to the statutory abrogation of the unconditional right to appeal in the present case, stating that it is similarly jurisdictional.

    The court interpreted the constitutional provision as allowing the legislature to expand, but not contract, the Appellate Division’s jurisdiction, except for appeals from non-final orders. The court stated that “the statutory abrogation of the right to appeal, leaving only the right to seek leave of a single Justice, not even the court itself, to take an appeal, represents both a limitation and condition on the formerly existing right to appeal from a final judgment or sentence.” Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the appeals and remitted the cases for determination.