 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Thomas Corletta
Thomas A. Corletta, ESQ. 585-546-5072
|
|
|
DWI/RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, CONTINUED, PG. 2 Persistence paid off for Mr. Corletta on a preliminary ruling in People v. M.D. (Clarkson Town Court; 5/15/06). In that case Mr. Corletta resisted the suspension of his client's license pending prosecution, pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193(2)(e)(7), insisting that the People had not filed the appropriate documentation of the breath test result. The Town Court, after a debate spanning over three months, was forced to agree with Mr. Corletta, and declined to suspend his client's driver's license. Although seemingly a small victory, it was of great significance to Mr. Corletta's client, who drives daily for purposes of his employment and often transports vehicles. Here, Mr. Corletta showed how thorough preparation and effective advocacy can help one's client, even in situations where all that is at stake is preliminary ruling. Indeed, Mr. Corletta came through when his client's license was literally, "at stake". Mr. Corletta achieved another important victory for a professional client in People v. Anonymous (Rochester City Ct., 5/06). Mr. Corletta achieved a dismissal of all DWI charges against his client, a teacher who would have faced certain disciplinary action if convicted. Although the facts were again adverse, including a claim of a near accident with a police car, Mr. Corletta raised the proper issues via Pre-Trail Motions, thereby placing his client in a position to take advantage of mistakes by the Prosecutor. When the People were not ready on two separate occasions, Mr. Corletta made the appropriate Speedy Trail Motion, which resulted in complete dismissal of all charges and restoration of his client's license. Most importantly, as aforementioned, he avoided potential disciplinary proceedings and possible loss of employment for his client. Representing professionals in DWI cases can present challenging issues, particularly if the professional has a State-issued certification or license. Mr. Corletta is well versed in this area, and would be happy to consult with you on this topic. Mr. Corletta mounted another successful challenge to a road block stop and arrest in People v. J.R. (Greece Town Ct., 7/13/06). Attacking the arrest on several fronts, including the Constitutional validity of the checkpoint and the admissibility of the breath test result, Mr. Corletta was able to persuade the Court to exclude the breath test result. Based upon lack of evidence of any erratic operation, due to the fact his client was stopped only because of operation of the checkpoint, Mr. Corletta was able to reduce the "common-law" DWI charge to the lesser traffic violation of Driving While Ability Impaired. Mr. Corletta's client, who has a Commercial Driver's License, was also granted a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities by the Court,which allowed him to continue to operate commercial motor vehicles and heavy equipment during the short 90 day suspension. Mr. Corletta's hard work paid off, and enabled his client to keep his job. In what began as a Felony case in 2003, patience and perserverence paid off. In People v. AW , (Henrietta Town Court, 7/06), Mr. Corletta's client was originally charged with Felony Driving While Intoxicated, with 2 prior convictions. Correctly analyzing the facts, Mr. Corletta advised his client to reject any offers. The case was presented to the Grand Jury, and the charge reduced to the infraction of Driving While Ability Impaired. It was returned to the Town Court in January, 2004. After over two years of litigation and two separate speedy trial motions, the case was dismissed in its entirety in July, 2006. In the meantime Mr. Corletta assisted his client in regaining his license. As a result, Mr. Corletta's client went from a felony charge and possible incarceration to no conviction or punishment at all. Mr. Corletta achieved an unheard of dismissal "in the furtherance of justice" of DWI charges against his client in People v. R.M. (Rochester City Court, 7/31/06). In that case, Mr. Corletta's client was found by police sleeping in a parked vehicle with the engine turned on to keep warm. Witnesses placed Defendant in the vehicle for at least one hour prior to the police encounter. There was no evidence of any intent by Defendant to move the vehicle. Further, it took several attempts by police to awaken Defendant. Defendant candidly admitted, at the pre-trial hearing, that he had been drinking at a nearby residence, did not feel capable of driving, and intended to "sleep it off" before attempting to drive. Rochester City Court Judge Thomas R. Morse found the testimony of both the officer and Defendant credible, and found under existing precedents, primarily People v. Prescott 95 NY2d 655 (2001), that there was an intent element in any Driving While Intoxicated case, and that Defendant did not demonstrate any "conscious objective" to operate the vehicle. The credible testimony showed the vehicle had not been moved and Defendant had been in the vehicle for at least an hour. Mr. Corletta effectively argued that to penalize a person who knew he should not drive for simply turning on the motor to stay warm would not deter people from driving in similar situations. If they were going to be prosecuted for "sleeping it off" in a parked car, there would be no reason for them not to drive. The result would be the same. The Court found Mr. Corletta's argument persuasive, and exercised its broad discretion to dismiss the charges in the "furtherance of justice". This is a rare and extraordinarily rare remedy invoked only in special cases, and is based upon the Court's discretion, not just the evidence in the case. Mr. Corletta argued that the facts in this case showed his client had no intention of operating a motor vehicle, and was merely trying to "sleep it off" before attempting to drive. The facts adduced at the Hearing, from both Mr. Corletta's client and the officer, supported this argument. Reported case law shows this may have been the first "interest of justice" dismissal in a Driving While Intoxicated case. In today's adverse drinking/driving climate, this is a shining example of what knowledge of the law, skill, and advocacy can produce. Effective advocacy and knowledge of the law once agian paid off for one of Mr. Corletta's clients in People v. T.M. (Irondequoit Town Ct., 8/11/06). In that case, Mr. Corletta's client was on probation for Driving While Intoxicated, and was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle. He was charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in the Second Degree, based upon his alleged operation of a motor vehicle while his license was revoked for the DWI. Citing numerous deficiencies in the accusatory instrument, Mr. Corletta obtained an outright dismissal of that charge. In the meantime, Mr. Corletta's client had been violated on his DWI probation based upon that charge and faced incarceration. As a result of Mr. Corletta obtaining that dismissal, his client was restored to probation without any additional punishment.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
