| People v Machuca |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08786 [45 AD3d 1043] |
| November 15, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maria M.Machuca, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Chantelle Schember of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.),rendered March 1, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of promoting prisoncontraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventhdegree (three counts).
In 2004, defendant traveled to the Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County to visit aninmate. The bag she brought with her to the facility was intended to be stored in a locker whichwas available to visitors. Upon entering the facility, but prior to placing her belongings in alocker, her bag was searched, revealing 0.6 grams of crack cocaine in a white plastic film case,one whole and one broken methadone pill, residue of cocaine on the inside of a black plastic filmcase and residue of heroin on a $5 bill. Defendant admitted that the drugs were hers and claimedthat they were for her personal use and that she had intended to store them in the locker; shedenied attempting to introduce the drugs into the prison population.
Defendant was indicted for promoting prison contraband in the first degree and for threecounts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Upon herconviction of all counts after a jury trial, she appeals by challenging both the legal sufficiencyand the weight of the evidence. She asserts that she did not intend to introduce contraband intothe facility, that the quantity of drugs were too minimal to constitute dangerous contraband and,[*2]with the drugs confiscated at the locker area, she neveractually brought them into the detention facility.
Promoting prison contraband in the first degree occurs when a person "knowingly andunlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility" (Penal Law §205.25 [1]). Dangerous contraband is any contraband "capable of such use as may endanger thesafety or security of a detention facility or any person therein" (Penal Law § 205.00 [4]).Although certain types of contraband, such as weapons, are inherently dangerous, possession ofsmall amounts of drugs must be accompanied by proof of the danger posed to that particularcorrectional facility (see People vMartinez, 34 AD3d 859, 859-860 [2006]; People v Salters, 30 AD3d 903, 904 [2006], lv granted 9NY3d 881 [2007]); "broad penological concerns" or "speculative and conclusory testimony" willnot suffice (People v Brown, 2AD3d 1216, 1217, 1218 [2003], lvs denied 3 NY3d 637 [2004]).
Here, it was established that the Clinton Correctional Facility is a maximum A-level securityprison, the highest level of secured correctional facilities. Testimony from a Department ofCorrectional Services employee stationed at this facility detailed, in general terms, how drugspose a danger in prisons and how they particularly pose a danger in this facility by leading togang violence, which jeopardizes the safety of staff and inmates. Such evidence supported afinding that the drugs possessed by defendant constituted dangerous contraband (see People vRivera, 221 AD2d 380, 380 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 977 [1996]; People vWatson, 162 AD2d 1015, 1015 [1990], lv dismissed 77 NY2d 857 [1991]).
As to defendant's assertion that the evidence failed to establish that she knowingly andunlawfully introduced contraband into the facility, both the regulation (see 7 NYCRR200.3 [b] [3]) and signs posted outside of the entrance to this facility clearly state that contrabandis prohibited. Defendant admitted that, having previously served a prison sentence after herconviction for possession of drugs, she was fully aware of this prohibition and that these drugswere considered to be contraband in a prison setting.
Reviewing and rejecting defendant's additional ascriptions of error as without merit, weaffirm.
Crew III, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.