People v. Suitte
455 N.Y.S.2d 675, 90 A.D.2d 80, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18811 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing court does not abuse its discretion by imposing a term of imprisonment on a first-time offender for illegal gun possession, as the court is entitled to prioritize the legislative goal of general deterrence over individual mitigating factors.
Facts:
- James Suitte, a 46-year-old college-educated man with no prior criminal record, operated a tailor shop in a high-crime area of The Bronx.
- In 1973, Suitte legally purchased and registered a .25 calibre automatic pistol in North Carolina.
- For approximately seven and a half years prior to his arrest, Suitte carried the loaded, unlicensed pistol in New York for protection.
- Suitte was aware of New York's gun licensing requirement but had not completed the process.
- In January 1981, police discovered the loaded pistol in Suitte's possession during an arrest for an unrelated matter (unauthorized use of a motor vehicle).
Procedural Posture:
- James Suitte was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, a class D felony.
- In the County Court, Nassau County, the trial court, Suitte entered a plea of guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of 30 days of imprisonment and three years of probation.
- Suitte, as appellant, appealed the sentence to this court, an intermediate appellate court, arguing it was excessive.
- Execution of the sentence was stayed pending the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sentence of 30 days' imprisonment for a first-time offender convicted of misdemeanor illegal gun possession constitute an abuse of sentencing discretion, where the legislature has enacted a strict gun law emphasizing general deterrence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lazer, J. P.
No, the sentence does not constitute an abuse of discretion. A sentencing court acts within its discretion when it imposes a term of imprisonment on a first-time offender to effectuate the strong legislative policy of general deterrence embodied in a new gun control statute. The primary purpose of New York's 1980 gun legislation was general deterrence, aiming to send a 'get tough' message that illegal gun possession is a serious offense with a strong prospect of incarceration. The sentencing court properly balanced the purposes of punishment and prioritized deterrence. Although Suitte's personal circumstances are mitigating, he knowingly violated the law for over seven years. Reducing the sentence would undermine the statute's deterrent effect and send a message that first offenders are exempt from its penal provisions.
Dissenting - O'Connor, J.
Yes, the sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion. The 30-day jail term for this defendant is 'cruel and harsh and borders on the obscene' given his status as a productive, law-abiding citizen with no criminal intent who possessed the weapon out of a justified fear for his safety. Sentencing should not be an ad hoc exercise where one judge can prioritize general deterrence to make an example of an individual. For a non-violent first offender who poses no threat to the community, alternatives to incarceration should be found. This sentence is counterproductive, creates undue hardship, and fails to recognize that the punishment should fit the crime and the individual.
Analysis:
This decision validates the judiciary's role in enforcing legislative policy, particularly in 'get tough' sentencing schemes. It establishes that general deterrence can be the overriding sentencing factor, even in the face of compelling individual mitigating circumstances like a defendant's clean record and non-violent intent. The ruling grants trial courts significant discretion to impose incarceration on first-time offenders to send a broader societal message, potentially diminishing the emphasis on individualized sentencing for crimes targeted by such legislation.
