People v. Howell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howell

139 A.D.3d 484, 29 N.Y.S.3d 803

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

DecidedMay 12, 2016

Docket1124 3291/10

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 484 (People v. Howell) 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. Howell, 139 A.D.3d 484, 29 N.Y.S.3d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered May 18, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the charges in furtherance of justice. After considering the statutory factors in totality, we find no “compelling factor” (CPL 210.40 [1]) that would warrant that “extraordinary remedy” (People v Moye, 302 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]), “which we have cautioned should be exercised sparingly” (People v Keith R., 95 AD3d 65, 67 [1st *485 Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Defendant’s complaints about the validity of his original prosecution for felony charges, upon which the People were unable to proceed, do not undermine the remaining misdemeanor drug charge, and there is no extraordinary circumstance warranting dismissal of that charge.

The motion court implicitly considered the statutory factors, and defendant’s challenge to the form of the court’s decision is unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, ManzanetDaniels and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered May 18, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the charges in furtherance of justice. After considering the statutory factors in totality, we find no “compelling factor” (CPL 210.40 [1]) that would warrant that “extraordinary remedy” (People v Moye, 302 AD2d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2003]), “which we have cautioned should be exercised sparingly” (People v Keith R., 95 AD3d 65, 67 [1st *485 Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Defendant’s complaints about the validity of his original prosecution for felony charges, upon which the People were unable to proceed, do not undermine the remaining misdemeanor drug charge, and there is no extraordinary circumstance warranting dismissal of that charge.

The motion court implicitly considered the statutory factors, and defendant’s challenge to the form of the court’s decision is unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, ManzanetDaniels and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 484, 29 N.Y.S.3d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howell-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack