Opposition — Longe v. New York

DAVID P. LONGE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

Table of Contents.

Page

ec tw buesbevsceveoese i

Reason for Denying the Writ................006: l

I. The petitioner’s right to equal protection of the *

law under the United States Constitution was

cee ceene ]

CONCLUSION. The petition for a writ of certiorari

dee sa ede sccecceees 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.

CASES:

People v. Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert. den. sub nom.

Broadie v. New York, 423 U.S. 950 (1975)... 2,3

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)...... 3

STATUTE:

pg Seg) 6) l

MISCELLANEOUS:

1. United States Constitution, Amendment XIV.... 2

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1983.

DAVID P. LONGE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent.

e

RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION,

Reason for Denying the Writ.

I.

The petitioner’s right to equal protection of the law

under the United States Constitution was not violated.

The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decision of

the state courts below may be found in 28 U.S.C. Section

1257(3), as follows:

‘*Final judgments or decrees rendered by the

highest court of a State in which a decision could be

had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court as

follows:

‘*By writ of certiorari, where the validity of a

treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in

question or where the validity of a State statute is

drawn in question on the ground of its being

repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of

the United States, or where any title, right,

privilege or immunity is specially set up or claimed

under the Constitution, treaties or statutes of, or

commission held or authority exercised under, the

United States.”’

It is argued that Amendment XIV of the United States

Constitution was violated in that the sentence imposed

upon the petitioner denied him equal protection of the

law. On page 4 of his petition, it is claimed that the

defendant received a harsher sentence than the majority of

repeat felony drug offenders.

The People respectfully submit that no current statistics

or facts are cited by the petitioner in support of his conten-

tion. The reports mentioned are dated 1978 and 1979 and

refer to the New York drug laws of 1973, not the present

Statutes.

Secondly, this issue of sentencing under the New York

drug laws was previously considered by this Court in

People v. Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert. den. sub nom.

Broadie v. New York, 423 U.S. 950 (1975). There, this

Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari to the

Court of Appeals of New York where the Court had

discussed the constitutional equal protection argument in

oo

wat ee

3

the context of a cruel and unusual punishment claim, and

had found no constitutional violations. See People v.

Broadie, supra, at page 111.

Finally, this Court has recognized the essential part that

plea bargaining plays in the criminal justice process and

the finality that fairly obtained guilty pleas should be af-

forded. Suntobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).

At bar, the petitioner entered a knowing, voluntary and

intelligent plea to a reduced felony charge in satisfaction

of three pending felonies. No promises were made regard-

ing sentence. Here, no claim has been made that the plea

was coerced or obtained through ignorance or fear. No

unfulfilled promise exists, and no plea agreement was

breached. This Court should find the plea was properly ac-

cepted.

The People respectfully submit that in light of the above

circumstances, no constitutional right of the petitioner

was violated.

CONCLUSION,

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

SOL GREENBERG

Albany County District Attorney

Attorney for Respondent

Albany County Courthouse

Albany, NY 12207

(518) 445-7555

GEORGE H. BARBER

Assistant District Attorney

(Of Counsel)