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.
The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Walter McILWAIN, Respondent.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated October 17, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40, and, in effect, vacated the defendant's plea of guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment and the plea are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for sentencing by a different Justice.
While on parole from a sentence imposed upon a prior conviction, the defendant was charged in the instant case with, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. On March 22, 2000, the defendant pleaded guilty to the class D felony of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 220.06[5] ) in return for a promised sentence of two to four years in prison. The defendant was released pending sentencing, which was initially scheduled for May 24, 2000.
The Supreme Court granted continual adjournments of the date of sentence, over the repeated objections of the People. The defendant took this opportunity to enroll himself in a program sponsored by the Fortune Society on September 13, 2000. He was later reported to have successfully completed that program as of March 13, 2001. His sentence remained pending.
On September 19, 2001, approximately 18 months after having pleaded guilty, and while still awaiting sentencing, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40(1). The motion was based largely on the fact that the defendant completed the program noted above. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. We reverse.
The defendant failed to establish any compelling factor, consideration, or circumstance which would justify dismissal of the indictment against him in the interest of justice (see People v. Algarin, 294 A.D.2d 589, 742 N.Y.S.2d 899; People v. Flemming, 291 A.D.2d 506, 738 N.Y.S.2d 230).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: December 02, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)