Opinion
1124, 3291/10.
05-12-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael HOWELL, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew J. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew J. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.
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 A.D.2d 610, 611, 755 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2d Dept.2003] ), “which we have cautioned should be exercised sparingly” ( People v. Keith R., 95 A.D.3d 65, 67, 941 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 963, 950 N.Y.S.2d 115, 973 N.E.2d 213 [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.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ., concur.