DWI Attorney in Rochester, NY

People v. Anonymous

MR CORLETTA OBTAINS ANOTHER SUPERIOR RESULT IN DIFFICULT CASE.

Consider these circumstances: an emotionally distraught individual is drinking at a bowling alley.

The individual heads home in bad weather. They become so distraught, they pull to the side of the road on an expressway. Although pulled completely off the road, cars are still slowing down and going around the vehicle, due to bad weather.

A State Trooper sees this and pulls up behind the vehicle. He exits to speak to the driver. Although the driver provides license and registration, the driver is so emotionally distraught they do not answer any further questions, and actually vomit on themselves inside the vehicle. The driver displays some signs of intoxication, such as the odor of an alcoholic beverage, but also exhibits mental health symptoms.

The driver is subsequently arrested for Driving While Intoxicated after allegedly refusing emergency medical attention.

The driver is transported to a State Police substation where the driver refuses to submit to chemical breath testing. The driver is still emotionally distraught and crying. Only then does the State Trooper decide to “mental hygiene” arrest the individual, as well as charging them with Driving While Intoxicated.

These were the facts Mr. Corletta was confronted with in People v. Anonymous (Gates Tn. Ct., 6/22).

Naturally, the Prosecutor, cherry-picking the facts, attempted to portray Mr. Corletta’s client as an out-of-control irrational drunk, although there was ample evidence, coming from the Trooper himself, that the client was emotionally distraught to the point no Field Sobriety Tests were administered, allegedly because the client refused or couldn’t do them. The Trooper also admitted he did not observe any driving of any kind, and further admitted that many characteristics the client displayed could have been caused by the client’s “hysterical” emotional state.

The Trooper could not explain why the client was not mental hygiene arrested immediately, as opposed to the prolonged procedure the Trooper carried out with an obviously distraught and sick defendant. Mr. Corletta vigorously argued there was insufficient evidence to show the client was intoxicated, or had recently operated a motor vehicle, and that the supposed indicators of intoxication displayed were equally attributable to the client’s emotionally distraught condition, which ultimately led to a mental hygiene arrest.

The prosecutor disingenuously argued it was Mr. Corletta’s duty to bring out the client’s mental health problems, although the Trooper felt it was obvious enough to send the client to the hospital for mental health reasons.

The Trooper essentially asked the Court to believe he was the final arbiter of what was causing Defendant’s behavior, and attributed it to alcohol, although at the same time, referring the client for a mental hygiene arrest. Thorough vigorous advocacy, Mr. Corletta demonstrated the Trooper could not have it both ways, and the client was convicted only of the lesser-included traffic infraction of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Impaired Alcohol, which took into account that the client’s distraught condition probably attributed to much of the alleged behavior.

As a result of Mr. Corletta’s vigorous advocacy, the client received only a minimal fine and required attendance at an Impaired Driver Program. Mr. Corletta’s advocacy did not allow the prosecutor to paint the client as a dangerous drunk, and validated the client’s mental health issues.

People v. Anonymous (Mon. Co. Ct., 3/22)

MR. CORLETTA WINS RESTORAL OF CLIENT’S PISTOL PERMIT DESPITE TWO DWI ARRESTS.

Unlike in the past, courts have become extremely cautious when dealing with alcohol-related arrests by holders of Pistol Permits.

This is particularly the case when the weapon is actually being carried at the time of the arrest.
Such was the case in People v. Anonymous (Mon. Co. Ct., 3/22).

There, Mr. Corletta’s client had a prior Pistol Permit suspension and restoral from a Driving While Ability Impaired conviction .

The client picked up a second Driving While Intoxicated arrest and had the gun with them in the car.

However, the client immediately alerted the arresting Deputy to the presence of the weapon, and that they had a permit. There was no issue other than the traffic-related DWI arrest, as the Deputy immediately located and secured the weapon.

Nonetheless, the issuing Court again suspended the client’s Pistol Permit. It is simply not good to be arrested for drinking and driving while carrying a gun.

Tackling both cases, Mr. Corletta secured a reduction of the Driving While Intoxicated charge to Driving While Ability Impaired, a traffic infraction, in prosecution-oriented Ontario County, with minimum punishments. The Town Justice in that case was a former Police Officer.

Turning to the Pistol Permit issue, Mr. Corletta effectively represented his client by demonstrating to the licensing Court that the client had complied with all Driving While Ability Impaired sentence requirements, and that the gun was not involved in the arrest in any way. This was notwithstanding the client was upset with law enforcement due to circumstances of the arrest, and was quite vocal, which caused concern to the Court.

This was all explained to the Licensing Judge by Mr. Corletta at the Pistol Permit Hearing.

The client, a Second Amendment advocate, was counseled by Mr. Corletta that this was not the time or place to engage in political debate.

As a result, the Court required nothing further, relying upon Mr. Corletta’s explanation and proffering of proof of completion of all requirements of the Court’s Driving While Ability Impaired sentence, including the Impaired Driver Program and alcohol evaluation.

The Court restored the client’s Pistol Permit without further punishment, but with a general admonishment, which was well within its’ discretion, to follow all rules regarding possession of firearms.

The client, an avid target shooter and sportsman, was extremely grateful, but was counseled by Mr. Corletta that carrying a gun while going out socially is not a good idea.

People v. Anonymous (Ontario Co., 4/7/22).

MR. CORLETTA ASSISTS SERIAL DRUNK DRIVER IN SEEMINGLY HOPELESS SITUATION

The practice of law becomes extremely frustrating when people don’t listen. Such was the case in People v. Anonymous (Ontario Co., 4/22).

In that case, Mr. Corletta obtained a favorable plea agreement for his client, who had multiple drunk driving convictions going back to the 1970s. Mr. Corletta obtained a minimum sentence on a new Driving While Intoxicated charge, and the client was ultimately relicensed.

However, the client was also subjected to New York’s mandatory Ignition Interlock law. The client could not stand prosperity, and obtained 3 separate Ignition Interlock violations within the space of about one month.

The client was summoned back to Court by the Judge for a violation of their Conditional Discharge. The Court was obviously perturbed. The Court could have revoked Defendant’s original sentence and sentenced the client to jail on the 3 violations.

Acting quickly, Mr. Corletta directed the client to enroll in alcohol treatment and provide proof thereof. The client initially resisted, but Mr. Corletta laid down the law. Mr. Corletta pointed out to the Court that the client was enrolled in treatment, and offered to make attendance in treatment a part of his client’s sentence, and for the Court to monitor it.

The District Attorney asked that the client be immediately taken into custody. Mr. Corletta beat back that request by demonstrating his client entered treatment and offered to keep the Court up dated on progress.

The Court gave the client a stern warning and accepted Mr. Corletta’s proposal, denying the District Attorney’s request to take the client into custody, which would have resulted in a loss of employment.

Following Court, Mr. Corletta gave the client another stern talking to and advised the client how close they came to going to jail. The client was directed to complete treatment and follow all recommendations, if they wanted to stay out of jail and/or off probation, and provide Mr. Corletta with regular updates to give to the Court.

Given the circumstances, Mr. Corletta performed a virtual miracle on behalf of this client. Many lawyers would not have pushed that hard for a client who seemingly didn’t want to help themselves.

People v. D.A. (Roch. City Ct., 2/2022)

MR. CORLETTA OBTAINS SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN SERIOUS DWI ACCIDENT CASE WITHOUT HAVING TO CROSS EXAMINE ARRESTING OFFICER

Consider this scenario: Client has been drinking. Returns home from party. While driving down a city street, client loses control, strikes parked vehicle, and bounces into middle of street. Client must be extricated from vehicle by Fire and Emergency personnel. Client fights with them. Client later becomes belligerent with police and refuses to provide name. Client subsequently submits to breath test with result well over legal limit.

This is a scenario in which most lawyers would throw up their hands and beg for mercy from the District Attorney and Court.

Not Mr. Corletta; he attacks it.

Carefully analyzing the situation, Mr. Corletta quickly notes there were 2 officers involved, neither of whom saw the accident happen. The first officer arriving at the scene had minimal interaction with the client. He called a second officer, presumably more experienced in DWI investigations, to administer Field Sobriety Tests, although client was on a gurney in an ambulance, and in no condition to perform such tests.

First, Mr. Corletta carefully examined the Accusatory Instruments. He noted that although 3 underlying traffic violations were charged, there was no enunciation of any facts supporting those charges. Mr. Corletta requested Supporting Depositions for all 3 charges. When none were rendered, Mr. Corletta quickly obtained their dismissal; thereby saving the client 9 points.

The Supporting Depositions that were filed were conclusory as to the driving violations and did not support them. The officers did not observe the accident and did not bother to enunciate any facts providing circumstantial evidence that Defendant committed the underlying traffic violations.

Mr. Corletta next moved to the two DWI charges. Attacking the charge of Driving with BAC over .08%, Mr. Corletta pointed out there was no actual Supporting Deposition establishing Defendant’s BAC.

Mr. Corletta made this argument in writing and twice in open Court, and further argued Defendant’s license should not have been suspended because there was an inadequate Accusatory Instrument that did not show an illegal BAC. The Court agreed and dismissed that charge, over the bewildered Prosecutor’s objection. At this point, four out of the original 5 charges had been dismissed.

The only original charge left was the so-called “Common Law” Driving While Intoxicated, which was based upon observations of Defendant at the scene, Defendant’s physical condition, and Defendant’s alleged admission as to driving, after being questioned on the gurney.

Mr. Corletta attacked the evidence establishing Defendant was the operator. This was made easier because at the Probable Cause Hearing, the People failed to produce the first officer who saw Defendant being removed from the vehicle.

The second officer displayed a flippant attitude and only had been involved in 12 perior Driving While Intoxicated arrests. He did an inadequate investigation. He displayed an inadequate knowledge of Field Sobriety Testing and almost seemed bothered by the Prosecutor’s questioning and Mr. Corletta’s objections. The District Attorney also failed to lay an adequate foundation to admit the results of the Field Sobriety Tests into evidence, which were also performed improperly on a person just involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The hearing was prolonged due to Mr. Corletta’s persistent objections, which were repeatedly sustained by the Court.

Finally at a sidebar, Mr. Corletta suggested a disposition to the District Attorney where his client would plead guilty to a reduced charge; a mere traffic violation. The District Attorney agreed to Mr. Corletta’s proposal. The Court also agreed.

Mr. Corletta’s client suffered a shorterm license suspension, in which the client will have a Conditional License, provided the client attends a state-run Impaired Driver Program. The client also received the minimum fine. The client received no other punishment, and will not have to install the dreaded Ignition Interlock device on their vehicle. The client will not have a criminal record and will not be monitored.

Mr. Corletta was able to obtain this disposition by taking apart the People’s case from an evidentiary standpoint. He never had to ask the officer a single question. This is where knowledge of the evidence and law in Driving While Intoxicated cases pays off. It prevents the client from being placed in jeopardy through a full adversarial hearing, since in most Driving While Intoxicated cases the client has been drinking. The case never reached the point where the merits were addressed, and the client benefitted. This has been Mr. Corletta’s unique in handling these difficult DWI cases for his entire career modus operandi.

People v. H.R. (Wayland Tn. Ct., 11/17/21)
DESPITE HIGHLY UNFAVORABLE FACTS, MR. CORLETTA OBTAINS OUTSTANDING DISPOSITION

Consider these facts. Rural area. Complaint of a motorcyclist speeding out of a bar is sent to 911 dispatch. Police locate 2 motorcyclists in rural village, allegedly driving recklessly. Both motorcyclists pulled over and charged with DWI. To most lawyers this would sound like a hopeless situation. Not Mr. Corletta.

Carefully parsing out the facts, Mr. Corletta determined the 911 call referred to his client’s companion; not his client. Carefully crafting a set of motions challenging the 911 call and making various other arguments, Mr. Corletta served a bevy of Motions on a rural District Attorney’s office, prior to his client’s arraignment. The client is a rural truck driver with a CDL. The client is older, has no prior criminal history, and has 35 years experience as a truck driver.

Mr. Corletta appeared before a Town Justice with no prior experience as a Judge, and a total lack of knowledge of the procedures in a Driving While Intoxicated case. Nonetheless, by continuing to attack, Mr. Corletta prevented suspension of his client’s license for over 4 months.

However, Mr. Corletta also realized the chances of complete victory in this Court were minimal, given the rural Town Justice had little knowledge of the law; let alone some of the rather complex arguments Mr. Corletta was making.

Therefore, Mr. Corletta negotiated a disposition with the District Attorney, where all original charges were withdrawn and dismissed, and the client pled guilty to a minor alcohol-related traffic infraction with a minimum fine.

The client will not receive any of the usual punishments in a Driving While Intoxicated case; such as a $1,000.00 fine, mandatory Ignition Interlock, etc. Instead the client will receive the minimum license suspension and Conditional License.

The client was extremely grateful for this result, which saved his employment and a great deal of embarrassment. Mr. Corletta will continue to assist his client in regaining their full license.

This case shows that even in adverse circumstances, quick analysis, prompt action, and hard work can result in a favorable disposition, when the odds are against it. Recognizing weaknesses in the case right from the beginning is key in dealing with the District Attorney.

People v. N.T. (Greece Tn. Ct., 12/21)

MR. CORLETTA USES KNOWLEDGE OF EVOLVING LAW TO OBTAIN DOUBLE DISMISSAL FOR DWI CLIENT

Effective January 1, 2020, New York passed a new Discovery law, which required Prosecutors to provide mandatory Discovery materials, without request from Defendant, within a specified period of time, or be charged with Speedy Trial Time, which is a departure from prior law.

If this were not enough, the Pandemic intervened. There were a series of Executive Orders tolling Speedy Trial Time. However, that ended in October, 2020. Many Prosecutors were lulled into a false sense of security (or outright laziness), based upon repeated “administrative adjournments” due to the Pandemic.

However, effective October 4, 2020, the Governor’s Executive Orders stopped the toll on Speedy Trial Time in Misdemeanor DWI cases. Therefore, this was not a license to continue to do thing.

Many prosecutors did not take note, and continued to delay service of Discovery materials after October 4, 2020. This is what happened in People v. N.T. (Greece Tn. Ct., 12/21).

There, Defendant was arrested in November, 2020, but Court appearances were delayed until April, 2021. However, that did not excuse the Prosecutor’s requirement to file and serve Discovery. They failed to do so.

Accordingly, upon resumption of Court appearances in late April, 2021, Mr. Corletta immediately attacked, objecting to the Court’s jurisdiction and arguing there was an expiration of Speedy Trial time due to the District Attorney’s failure to do anything for 5 months. As a result, the case, which was charged as a Refusal, never got off the ground. Mr. Corletta’s client’s license was never suspended, and the charge was ultimately dismissed due to the Prosecutor’s inaction in a written Decision chastising the Prosecutor, which will serve as precedent in this county.

Accordingly, Mr. Corletta’s client got a rare “daily double” in a DWI Refusal case; i.e. no consequences for the Refusal from the DMV, and an outright dismissal of the DWI charge.

Needless to say, the client was extremely grateful for this outstanding result, which rarely occurs in Driving While Intoxicated cases.

People v. S.C (Roch City Ct., 5/22)

MR. CORLETTA ACHIEVES SPECTACULAR RESULT FOR CLIENT WITH PRIOR CONVICTION

Mr. Corletta recently took on a case where a client used a noted DWI defense attorney in the Rochester area just 2 years ago and was convicted of Driving While Ability Impaired after trial. The client was again arrested for an alcohol-related offense in People v. S.C (Roch City Ct., 5/22), with an alleged .13 BAC.

This client, just over 2 years after having been convicted of an alcohol-related offense, got another one, and was now looking at sharply enhanced penalties, including probation or jail. He now looked to Mr. Coretta for help. Examining the facts and circumstances, Mr. Corletta realized the case was soft. He immediately filed motions and attacked the People’s discovery responses and underlying breath test evidence.

Keeping up the attack with relentless motions, Mr. Corletta exposed that the manner of driving was not egregious and in fact, only a minimal at best violation of the Vehicle & Traffic Law. Mr. Corletta then got the underlying traffic violations dismissed on another motion, citing insufficiency of the factual allegations in the Supporting Depositions.

Continuing to hack away at the case, Mr. Corletta also exposed several discovery violations by the People, and filed multiple motions seeking discovery sanctions and Speedy Trial dismissal.

Unfortunately, this was met with hostility by the City Court Judge, particularly when Mr. Corletta cited several local cases supporting his argument. These cases were minimized by the City Court Judge, who said they were “lower court cases”.

Given the newness of Article 245 of the CPL, and little appellate guidance at this point on application of the new statute, “lower court cases” are all that are available. Moreover, the cases cited were reported cases by Judges at the same level of jurisdiction. Undeterred and continuing to attack, Mr. Corletta continued to challenge probable cause for the arrest and ultimately at trial, both the allegations of intoxication and the chemical test results.

Mr. Corletta aggressively cross-examined both the arresting State Trooper, who had a disciplinary history, and the Breath Test Operator, who knew little about how the machine operated or was maintained, given that it was completely automated and all he had to do was push a button to initiate the test sequence. The Breath Test Operator appeared annoyed that he had to testify. His lack of knowledge and expertise was exposed in both his direct and cross-examination testimony.

As a direct result, Mr. Corletta obtained an outright dismissal of the test charge, excluding the breath test result, and a reduction of the DWI charge to Driving While Ability Impaired; a traffic infraction. Therefore, of the original 4 charges, the client was convicted of none, and was only convicted of the minor traffic violation of Driving While Ability Impaired. The client received only minimal punishments, despite having 2 DWIs in 2 years, and due to Mr. Corletta’s continued advocacy, the client was in a far better position than when the case commenced.