People v Michael Johnson

Annotate this Case
People v Johnson 2005 NY Slip Op 05458 [5 NY3d 752] June 30, 2005 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 05, 2005

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Michael Johnson, Appellant.

Argued June 7, 2005; decided June 30, 2005

People v Johnson, 4 Misc 3d 140(A), affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Laura R. Johnson, New York City (Martin M. Lucente of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (William K. Clark and Joseph N. Ferdenzi of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed. [*2]

By felony complaint, defendant was charged with one felony count of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree and two counts each of the following misdemeanors: harassment, aggravated harassment and criminal contempt (all in the second degree). The prosecution moved to dismiss the felony charge, leaving only the misdemeanors. The court dismissed the felony charge without making any statement on the record as to the reason. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree and was sentenced to 60 days in jail. The Appellate Term affirmed, and a Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal.

We agree with the Appellate Term that CPL 180.50 is not applicable here. That provision requires that before permitting reduction of a felony charge to a misdemeanor, the court conduct an inquiry to determine whether the available facts and evidence provide a basis for charging a nonfelony offense (see People v Yolles, 92 NY2d 960 [1998]). Here, however, the felony charge was not reduced, it was dismissed altogether, and defendant pleaded guilty to a separately charged misdemeanor. Under the circumstances, no CPL 180.50 inquiry was required.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.