Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ROBERT CASE, JR., PETITIONER, v. FRANK A. SEDITA, III, ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND HONORABLE JOHN L. MICHALSKI, ERIE COUNTY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b][1] ) to prohibit the continued prosecution of Erie County Indictment No. 01158–2012.
It is hereby ORDERED that said petition is unanimously granted in part without costs, and judgment is granted in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506(b)(1), seeking, inter alia, to prohibit his prosecution in Supreme Court, Erie County, on that count of an indictment charging him with driving while intoxicated, per se, as a class E felony ( [DWI, per se] Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[2]; 1193[1][c][i][A] ). Petitioner alleges that such prosecution is barred by double jeopardy. Initially, we agree with petitioner that relief in the nature of prohibition pursuant to CPLR article 78, under the appropriate circumstances, is “available to bar a retrial on double jeopardy grounds” (Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243, 249 n 4). We further agree with petitioner that he is entitled to relief in the nature of prohibition barring his retrial on the charge of DWI, per se, and we therefore grant the petition to that extent.
Petitioner contends that the prohibition against double jeopardy bars the People from prosecuting him for the lesser included offense of DWAI. We reject that contention. “[I]n a bench trial, it is presumed that the Judge sitting as the trier of fact made his [or her] decision based upon appropriate legal criteria” (People v. Lucas, 291 A.D.2d 890, 891 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the court, upon acquitting defendant of common-law DWI, would have applied the “acquit-first” rule (see generally People v. Helliger, 96 N.Y.2d 462, 464–465; see also Matter of Rivera v. Firetog, 11 NY3d 501, 509 n 4), and next considered DWI, per se, before reaching DWAI as a lesser included offense under either count of DWI (see generally People v. Johnson, 87 N.Y.2d 357, 359–360). Inasmuch as the court convicted defendant of the count charging DWI, per se, it could not have reached the lesser included offense of DWAI. Consequently, we conclude that “double jeopardy concerns ․ are not present in the case at hand ․ [because] the People here d[o] not seek to retry defendant on the count[, i.e., DWI, per se, or common-law DWI] of which he was acquitted at the first trial. Rather, the only count at issue in the retrial [will be] the lesser [DWAI] charge for which the [court did not] reach a verdict. At no point during the retrial [will] defendant [be] in jeopardy of conviction of the greater offense. Thus, there [i]s no constitutional double jeopardy bar to [a] second trial” on the lesser included offense of DWAI (People v. Green, 96 N.Y.2d 195, 199).
Finally, although not raised by the parties, we note that “the accusatory instrument in the present case [was not] rendered a nullity by defendant's acquittal of [both counts of DWI] at his first trial ․ Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(9) specifically permits a conviction of [DWAI] on an instrument charging driving while intoxicated. Thus, the original instrument charging driving while intoxicated also, by operation of law, charged the offense of [DWAI]. No new accusatory instrument [is] required” (Green, 96 N.Y.2d at 199).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: OP 14–01594
Decided: May 01, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)