People v. Bolton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bolton

224 A.D.2d 436, 637 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 873

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 436 (People v. Bolton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bolton, 224 A.D.2d 436, 637 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), dated August 19, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 210.40 to dismiss Indictment No. 93-440, charging him with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), in the interest of justice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, Indictment No. 93-440 is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings before a different Judge.

The defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts). The indictment arose out of two separate incidents in which the defendant allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover officer.

The defendant sought, and by order of the County Court, Orange County, dated August 19, 1994, was granted, dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice. We reverse.

It is well settled that "the discretionary power to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice is to be exercised sparingly and its exercise involves a sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual against the competing interests of the public” (People v DeBiasi, 160 AD2d 952, 953; see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34; People v Brown, 194 AD2d 548).

In dismissing the instant indictment in the interest of justice, the County Court relied several factors, viz., (1) the instant incident was the defendant’s first involvement with law enforcement authorities, (2) the criminal charges only involved small amounts of cocaine, and (3) incarceration was mandatory for the crimes charged, and the People had not offered a plea to a lesser charge. These factors are insufficient to justify dismissal in the interest of justice (see, People v Varela, 106 AD2d 339; People v Ortiz, 152 AD2d 755; People v Harmon, supra; People v DeBiasi, supra). The County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted the defendant’s motion. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), dated August 19, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 210.40 to dismiss Indictment No. 93-440, charging him with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), in the interest of justice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, Indictment No. 93-440 is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings before a different Judge.

The defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts). The indictment arose out of two separate incidents in which the defendant allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover officer.

The defendant sought, and by order of the County Court, Orange County, dated August 19, 1994, was granted, dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice. We reverse.

It is well settled that "the discretionary power to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice is to be exercised sparingly and its exercise involves a sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual against the competing interests of the public” (People v DeBiasi, 160 AD2d 952, 953; see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34; People v Brown, 194 AD2d 548).

In dismissing the instant indictment in the interest of justice, the County Court relied several factors, viz., (1) the instant incident was the defendant’s first involvement with law enforcement authorities, (2) the criminal charges only involved small amounts of cocaine, and (3) incarceration was mandatory for the crimes charged, and the People had not offered a plea to a lesser charge. These factors are insufficient to justify dismissal in the interest of justice (see, People v Varela, 106 AD2d 339; People v Ortiz, 152 AD2d 755; People v Harmon, supra; People v DeBiasi, supra). The County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted the defendant’s motion. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 436, 637 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bolton-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack