Mr. Corletta also has an active criminal defense practice, and has defended thousands of clients for common Penal Law offenses, such as theft, assault, sex crimes, robbery, etc. Each case must be fully evaluated on its merits. The layman must remember that there are numerous issues in a criminal case beyond simple guilt or innocence. It is the defense attorney's duty to make sure that police have followed all proper procedures, both from a Constitutional and evidentiary standpoint, and to require the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If conviction occurs, then it is the defense attorney's duty to mitigate or eliminate punishment to the best of his/her ability. Therefore, as with all criminal cases, a complete review of the circumstances is necessary.
Mr. Corletta continues to demonstrate his knowledge of the law in criminal cases. While frequently applying criminal law concepts to DWI cases, Mr. Corletta has not forgotten to use them in more serious criminal cases. Recently, in People v. Roman 2 Misc3d 252, which was a serious, violent felony case, Mr. Corletta obtained, without the necessity of a hearing, suppression of all statements allegedly made by his client to police, on grounds of interference with his Constitutionally-protected right to counsel. Mr. Corletta also obtained severance of a potentially damaging charge at trial based upon the same Constitutional violation. The court wrote an extensive 10 page decision dealing with the issues in this complex case.
Mr. Corletta continues to stay abreast of developments in criminal law at both the State and Federal levels, in order to more properly assist his clients. Mr. Corletta also, in this rapidly changing post-9/11 world, continues to stay abreast of the collateral consequences of criminal conduct, as it affects a wide array of areas, including pistol permits, professional and business licensing, and immigration.
In People v. S. (1/25/05), Mr. Corletta obtained complete exclusion of alleged incriminating statements made by his client, by actually arguing that the statutory notice of these statements was served too early. Mr. Corletta, pointing to the strict language of CPL 710.30(2) argued that the People failed to serve notice of their intention to use these statements after Defendant's arraignment, which is what the statute requires. Instead, the People served notice of these statements prior to Defendant's arraignment. The Town Justice, agreeing with Mr. Corletta in a Decision believed to be the first of its kind in this area, excluded the statements, holding the People had served notice too early, and had not complied with the strict language of the statute.
Subsequent to that Decision, the District Attorney filed a "Superseding Information" and again attempted to offer statements the Court had ruled inadmissible in its prior Decision. Citing established Court of Appeals precedent in People v. Capalongo 85 NY2d 151 (1995), Mr. Corletta once again thwarted the District Attorney's improper attempt to circumvent the Court's previous ruling and the statements remained inadmissible.
“Domestic violence” is a rapidly developing area of criminal law, and often overlaps with family issues of custody, visitation, etc. Mr. Corletta is very familiar with the law governing Orders of Protection, and the concurrent jurisdiction of the Criminal and Family Courts. Recently, in People v. R., Monroe County Court dismissed an Indictment against Mr. Corletta’s client because he was being prosecuted for an alleged violation of an Order of Protection in both the Criminal and Family Courts, violating the prohibition against Double Jeopardy, as held by the Court of Appeals in People v. Wood 95 NY2d 509.
In People v. BB. (Perinton Town Ct., 6/14/05), Mr. Corletta achieved another dismissal in a so-called "domestic violence" case involving "threatening" telephone calls. This case demonstrates the ease with which spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends can place criminal charges against their mates over the use of the telephone when they wish to "breakup". Mr. Corletta reviewed the caselaw and achieved an outright dismissal convincing the Court the statements made in the alleged telephone calls did not rise to the level of Harassment.
Police initiatives to arrest certain types of violators often result in "cookie cutter" prosecutions that comprise Defendants rights. Theses initiatives usually result in large numbers of arrests for certain types of "quality of life" crimes, such as Patronizing a Prostitute or Public Lewdness.
It is important for defense attorneys to resist the urge to engage in blanket or "cookie cutter" dispositions, and to remember to evaluate each individual case on its merits.
Mr. Corletta recently demonstrated the importance of this in obtaining dismissals of two (2) accusatory instruments in Public Lewdness cases in Rochester City Court. In each case, the accusatory instrument was a boilerplate form which did not contain the factual specificity, required by a 1991 Court of Appeals decision; People v. McNamara 78 NY2d 626 (1991). Mr. Corletta carefully reviewed both accusatory instruments, and obtained dismissals of both, citing McNamara. Such dismissals will force police, concerned with "cleaning up" county parks, to make sure they make the proper factual allegations when arresting citizens for this relatively minor offense.
Even in a seemingly hopeless case, not giving up and carefully examining all revelant documents ofter yields a solution. In People v. B. S. (Roch. City Ct., 11/17/05), Mr. Corletta's client had left the jurisdiction. A Bench Warrant had been in effect for over three years when the client surrendered. The client, who had moved to Florida, was facing weekends in jail. Mr. Corletta examined the accusatory instrument charging her with Larceny and found that it was replete with hearsay. Mr. Corletta filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted. His client was able to return to Florida unimpeded.
Mr. Corletta's knowledge of automobile search and seizure law, a complex area, served his client well in People v. D.K. (Rochester City Ct., 12/07/05). In that case, Mr. Corletta's client was detained for traffic violations. Her purse was searched, incident to a "pat-down" search. Mr. Corletta obtained suppression of drugs found in the purse, based upon an unlawful search. Mr. Corletta demonstrated that a State Trooper's search of the purse was improper, as there were no officer safety issues, and no other exigent circumstances. Suppression of the drugs resulted in the case being disposed of with a plea to minor traffic charge, with no other punishment. The client avoided significant punishment, as she had an extensive prior criminal history.
Mr. Corletta showed the importance of knowing the law in People v. Anonymous (Rochester City Ct., 2/2/06). Mr. Corletta's client was charged with Public Lewdness, for engaging in sexual activity in a County park. However, the alleged activity was engaged in at 9:00 P.M., under cover of darkness, in a remote and deserted area of the park.
Applying a little-known requirement from a 15 year-old Court of Appeals case mandating that sexual conduct must be capable of being readily observed by casual passersby, Mr. Corletta argued, in an extensive Memorandum of Law, that there was no way any of the alleged sexual activity could have been readily observed, because it was engaged in under cover of darkness in a deserted area. Testimony revealed the arresting deputies had to use "night vision" goggles to observe what Mr. Corletta's client was allegedly doing.
As a result of Mr. Corletta's arguments, his client, a young professional attempting to obtain a certification requiring a clean criminal record, was found "not guilty" after a non-jury trial. The client was therefore spared both the embarrassment of a criminal conviction, and a certain career-ending impediment.
