People v Stephen

[*1] People v Stephen 2017 NY Slip Op 50014(U) Decided on January 11, 2017 Justice Court Of The Town Of Lockport, Niagara County Antkowiak, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 11, 2017
Justice Court of the Town of Lockport, Niagara County

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

against

James J. Stephen, Defendant.



16040153



For the People:

Caroline A. Wojtaszek

Niagara County District Attorney

Christina Savoia, Assistant District Attorney

For Defendant:

Anthony Lana, Esq.
Cheryl A. Antkowiak, J.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Here, the defendant pursuant to C.P.L. 170.40 made a motion commonly referred to as a Clayton motion (People vs. Clayton, 41 AD2d 204 [1973]). Such a motion should be granted only where a defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a compelling reason exists to warrant dismissal in the interest of justice. If the defendant fails to meet this burden, the court may summarily deny the motion (People vs. Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501 [1984]). As noted by the court in People vs. Gragert (1 Misc 3d 646, 648 [2003]):

"When deciding a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice, it is not necessary to engage in a point-by-point 'catechistic' discussion of all 10 factors listed under Criminal Procedure Law §170.40(1). (Rickert, 58 NY2d at 128.) Instead, the court is required to consider the factors 'individually and collectively' in making a value judgment that is based upon striking a sensitive balance between the interests of the individual and those of the state. (People vs. Harmon, 181 AD2d 34, 35 [1st Dept. 1992].) In so doing, the court must be mindful that its power to grant the relief is neither absolute nor uncontrolled (See People vs. Wingard, 33 NY2d 192, 196 [1973]), and that such power should be exercised 'sparingly.' (People vs. Howard, 151 AD2d 253, 256 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 811 [1989].)"

DECISION

Defendant James J. Stephen (Stephen) makes motion to dismiss his pending charges of Speeding VTL 1180 and two counts of Driving While Intoxicated VTL 1192(2) and 1192(3) pursuant to C.P.L. 170.40 in the Interests of Justice. On April 7, 2016 at 2:10 a.m. Stephen was stopped for speeding (64 in a 45 m.p.h.) on South Transit Road which is a public highway in the Town of Lockport, New York. He admitted drinking at least three (3) beers and was then tested by the arresting officer with the standard sobriety tests which indicated intoxication. He consented to a chemical breath test and registered .11% BAC. No accident occurred. Stephen posits that a conviction under VTL 1192(2) or (3) would impair his ability to enter Canada which is critical to his business. He also is required to travel to various states for business purposes. He has no prior criminal history and is a contributing member of society. His alcohol screening shows no alcohol addiction and he is not in need of further treatment.

The Court has considered the factors enumerated in C.P.L. 170.40(1). The Court agrees with Stephen that he has an excellent civic and personal history and that his business interest may be damaged by a misdemeanor conviction. However, this Court knows that any defendant so situated could use the same arguments for dismissal. Certainly the statutory factors considered by this Court, i.e. (1) seriousness of the offense - Driving While Intoxicated is one of the major causes of accidents or deaths on our highways, (2) fortunately no harm was caused by Stephen but the possibilities certainly existed if he was not stopped for speeding, (3) the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, (4) there was no misconduct on the part of the New York State Police, (5) the sentence herein is minimal with fine and surcharge but the loss of license would be substantial, but that could be said for any defendant, especially by commercial license drivers, (6) the impact on the community would show a special exception to this defendant and impact society's confidence in our Court system, (7) as commented on above, certainly the safety and welfare of the community is a concern of this Court and a restriction on Stephen's driving privileges would be appropriate, (8) Defendant is an excellent citizen who made a mistake but that should not exempt him from conviction but certainly would mitigate sentence or plea negotiations, (9) the purpose of the sentence and thus the usefulness of a conviction serves the legitimate purpose to restrict the Defendant's ability to drive for a period expressed in the statutes and would theoretically keep our public highways and the citizens who transverse the same safe during that period.

This Court does not deem this case reaches to the level to exercise its extraordinary interest of justice discretion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is in all respects denied. The case is to be scheduled for trial.

Dated: January 11, 2017

Lockport, New York

Hon. Cheryl A. Antkowiak

Lockport Town Justice