PEOPLE v. ADEMOLA (2019)

The defendant was convicted of one count of Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol under Mount Vernon City Court Docket Number 17-1223. The defendant entered a guilty plea on March 5, 2018 and was sentenced that day to a conditional discharge for one year.

The conditional discharge mandated that defendant attend the M.A.D.D. Victim Impact Panel class (M.A.D.D.); attend and successfully complete the Impaired Driver Program (I.D.P.), offered through DMV; pay a fine in the amount of $300.00; pay a mandatory surcharge in the amount of $250.00, and a Crime Victim Fee of $5.00. The defendant has successfully completed all of the mandated conditions, and is now waiting for the conditional discharge period to expire.

In an application dated November 30, 2018, the defendant filed a motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 410.90 seeking to terminate her conditional discharge early on the ground that she is up for a promotion at her job but she cannot accept this promotion while the conditional discharge is still pending.

The People oppose the motion on the ground that the defendant negotiated a plea for a conditional discharge, and her guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. As such, the People maintain that the defendant has offered no legal basis to disturb this sentence.

The Legislature has specifically granted the court power to terminate the conditional discharge (CPL § 410.90). A defendant may be discharged from a conditional discharge before the full term is completed, if the court determines that the defendant has diligently complied with the terms and conditions of the sentence of conditional discharge; and termination is not adverse to the protection of the public. CPL § 410.90(3)(b).

Upon review of the submissions of the parties herein the court is of the opinion that termination from conditional discharge in this case would be appropriate. In this action the defendant timely paid the fines and surcharges, and filed proof of completion of the M.A.D.D. and I.D.P. programs on May 10, 2018, a little more than two months from the date of her sentence. As such, this Court finds that she diligently complied with terms and conditions of the sentence of conditional discharge, and terminating her two months early from the conditional discharge is not adverse to the protection of the public.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion for early termination of her conditional discharge is granted.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Adrian N. Armstrong, J.