Summary
holding identity of name sufficient when supported by “further, connecting evidence”
Summary of this case from Hoffler v. BezioOpinion
April 19, 1996
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Wesley, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]). He contends that there was legally insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury of his predicate DWI conviction. That issue, however, is not before us because "the insufficiency of the evidence * * * before the Grand Jury is not reviewable upon appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction, which is based on legally sufficient trial evidence" ( People v. Johnson, 204 A.D.2d 1024, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 827; see, People v. Krouth, 201 A.D.2d 912, 912-913; see also, CPL 210.30). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit ( cf., People v. Van Buren, 82 N.Y.2d 878). The breathalyzer test record and an abstract of the motor vehicle operating record, exhibits that were before the Grand Jury, provide the "further, connecting evidence tending to show that defendant [is] the same [person] named in the certificate [of conviction]" ( People v. Van Buren, supra, at 881). The certificate of conviction, also an exhibit before the Grand Jury, indicates that an individual named Rejean Rattelade was previously convicted of DWI within the last 10 years. Each of the above exhibits states that the date of birth of an individual named Rejean Rattelade is September 26, 1960.
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is unavailing.