Opinion
01-22-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Glenn DAWSON, Defendant.
ADA Jonathan Laskin, Of Counsel, Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Kings County, for People. Angad Singh, Esq., Of Counsel, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, for Defendant.
ADA Jonathan Laskin, Of Counsel, Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Kings County, for People.
Angad Singh, Esq., Of Counsel, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, for Defendant.
JO ANN FERDINAND, J. On March 24, 2014, the defendant was arrested based upon allegations that he broke into a stolen van belonging to a plumbing company and removed tools. For these actions, Kings County Indictment Number 2423–2014 charges the defendant with the following felonies: Burglary in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third and Fourth Degrees, Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees, and Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree. The remaining counts are misdemeanors, including one charge of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree for a quantity of heroin allegedly found in the defendant's possession at the time of his arrest.
On June 10, 2014, the defendant was again arrested, this time based upon allegations that on January 11 and January 16, 2014, he used another's identity to sell stolen vehicles. For these actions, Kings County Indictment Number 4678–2014 charges the defendant with the following felonies: Identity Theft in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third and Fourth Degrees (2 counts each), Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree.
On December 11, 2014, the case was referred to the Brooklyn Treatment Court upon the defendant's request for Judicial Diversion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 216. It is undisputed that he is an eligible defendant for Judicial Diversion under Ind. No. 2423–2014 because he has no disqualifying conditions and all of the felonies charged in that indictment are specified in CPL § 216.00(1). However, the People contend that the defendant is not eligible for Judicial Diversion because, in addition to felonies listed in CPL § 216.00(1), Ind. No. 4678–2014 charges him with Identity Theft in the First Degree (a Class D felony) and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (a Class E felony), which are not specified as eligible offenses and neither embrace nor integrally relate to the specified charges.
Disqualifying conditions are: (1) a conviction within the past ten years for a Class A or violent felony, (2) a prior second violent felony or persistent felony offender adjudication, or (3) a pending violent felony charge.
--------
It is well-settled that a defendant may be eligible for Judicial Diversion despite the presence of non-violent, non-specified crimes on the indictment (see People v. Iverson, 32 Misc.3d 1246[A], 2011 WL 4387391 [Kings Ct.2011] [Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree]; see also People v. Weissman, 38 Misc.3d 1230[A], 2013 WL 842531 [N.Y.Ct.2013] [Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree]; People v. Jordan, 29 Misc.3d 619, 908 N.Y.S.2d 844 [Westchester Ct.2010] [Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree] ). This Court has previously held that, in order to be eligible for Judicial Diversion, the non-specified crimes with which a defendant is charged must embrace and integrally relate to the specified crimes (People v. Iverson, supra ). The People now contend that this Iverson analysis must be conducted based on the statutory language of the non-specified crimes rather than their underlying facts.
"The People's position is that this Court is precluded from preliminarily considering case specific allegations, and that this initial tier of analysis must be focused solely on the statutory definitions of the relevant charges" (People's Letter in Opposition, p. 1). In other words, the statutory language of the non-specified offenses must embrace and integrally relate to the statutory language of the specified offenses. In such an analysis, a finding of eligibility would have a stare decisis effect on other cases with the same charges. This Court disagrees with the People's position.
"Given that the underlying purpose of the statute, as stated in both the Senate and Assembly Memoranda in Support of Legislation, is [t]o significantly reduce drug-related crime by addressing substance abuse that often lies at the core of criminal behavior (see N.Y. Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 S.B. 2855/A.B. 6085)" ( People v. Jordan, 29 Misc.3d 619, 621–622, 908 N.Y.S.2d 844 ), Judicial Diversion is only available to those whose criminal activity is the result of substance abuse or dependence. "The objective is to have non-violent substance abusing defendants successfully complete treatment, thereby removing the need for these individuals to commit crimes in order to make
money to buy drugs " (emphasis added) ( People v. Denton, 30 Misc.3d 1232[A], 2011 WL 815694 [Bronx Ct.2011] ; see also People v. Jordan, 28 Misc.3d 708, 902 N.Y.S.2d 336 [Bronx Ct.2010] ; People v. Hughes, 27 Misc.3d 1235[A], 2010 WL 2384970 [Kings Ct.2010] ; People v. Coco, 28 Misc.3d 563, 905 N.Y.S.2d 441 [Kings Ct.2009] ). It is axiomatic that substance abusers need money to support their addictions. For that reason the Legislature included among the eligible offenses specified in CPL § 216.00(1) the most common non-violent Class D and E felonies committed by substance abusers to obtain money. Those non-violent felonies not specified, while less commonly committed for this purpose, may still share the objective of making money to buy drugs.
Contrary to the People's contention, judges have the authority to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the underlying facts of non-violent Class D and/or E felonies embrace and integrally relate to the underlying facts of specified charges. If so, then that defendant will be deemed eligible for Judicial Diversion and an evaluation may be ordered. However, given that such a finding is based upon the particular facts of a case, it does not turn a non-specified charge into an eligible one for other cases. Nor does a finding of ineligibility under the Iverson standard bar a finding of eligibility in another case. While there are certain non-specified charges that by definition will generally embrace and integrally relate to specified charges (i.e., attempts to commit, conspiracies to commit, and lesser-included offenses), other charges may embrace and integrally relate to specified charges depending upon the underlying facts. Such is the case here.
In this case, Indictment No. 4678–2014 alleges that on two occasions the defendant came into possession of a stolen vehicle and sold each of the vehicles for $300. In order to accomplish the sale of these vehicles, it is alleged that the defendant used the stolen driver's license of another and presented a falsified DMV form to the purchaser. The eligible charges encompass the possession of the stolen vehicles and the falsified DMV form, and the non-specified charges encompass the assumption of another's identity and presentation of the DMV form in order to accomplish the sale of the stolen vehicles. Clearly if the defendant is a substance abuser in need of money to purchase drugs, he would not just need to possess the stolen property, he would need to sell it. The commission of the non-specified charges was the only means by which the stolen property could be sold. Therefore, this Court finds that the non-specified crimes with which the defendant is charged embrace and integrally relate to the specified crimes and, therefore, do not disqualify him from participating in Judicial Diversion.
Once a defendant is determined to be eligible, the Court must determine whether to grant his request for an alcohol and substance abuse evaluation ( CPL § 216.05[1] ). The People argue that the Court should not order an evaluation in this case because "institutional confinement of the defendant is or may not be necessary for the protection of the public" ( CPL § 216.05[3][b][v] ). In support, the People refer to the defendant's "extensive record for breaking into motor vehicles and either damaging them or taking their contents," his prior 2005 conviction for Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the First Degree, and the current charges under Ind. No 4678–2014. While the People validly claim that breaking into and damaging vehicles may "deprive [victims] of their possessions," driving with a suspended licence may compromise "the safety of pedestrians and properly licensed motorists," and stealing someone's identity to sell stolen vehicles may place the victim "at risk of being wrongly investigated," this Court is not persuaded that institutional confinement of the defendant is necessary if in fact he has committed these crimes to support a drug addiction.
In determining whether to order an evaluation, the People also ask the Court to consider that the defendant testified under oath in the Grand Jury, denying the charges in Ind. No. 4678–2014. While recognizing that the defendant has "a statutory right to appear as a witness in his own behalf in front of the Grand Jury," the People argue that he could face a perjury charge upon his allocution to the plea of guilty required to participate in Judicial Diversion. A decision as to whether to charge a defendant with perjury upon his plea of guilty is left to the discretion of the prosecutor. Clearly this is a factor for the defendant to discuss with his attorney prior to the entry of such a plea. However, it does not affect this Court's determination as to the defendant's appropriateness for Judicial Diversion.
Accordingly, having considered all of the arguments presented, this Court finds that the defendant is an eligible defendant as defined in CPL § 216.00(1) despite the presence of neutral charges on the indictment. Given his claims that he is a substance abuser who committed these crimes to support his addiction, an evaluation is ordered to determine if he is an appropriate candidate for Judicial Diversion.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.