People v. Newell

Decision Date15 September 2022
Docket NumberFile No. 22090015
PartiesPeople of the State of New York v. Michael T. Newell, Defendant.
CourtNew York Justice Court

2022 NY Slip Op 22283

People of the State of New York
v.

Michael T. Newell, Defendant.

File No. 22090015

Justice Court of the Town of New Scotland, Albany County

September 15, 2022


FOR THE PEOPLE: HON. P. DAVID SOARES, Albany County District Attorney, Noah Engelhart, Esq., Assistant District Attorney.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: STEPHEN T. COMMINS, ESQ., Attorney for Defendant.

DAVID J. WUKITSCH, J.

Before this court is defendant Michael T. Newell's coram nobis application to vacate judgments of conviction rendered upon his 1992 guilty pleas in this court to charges of driving while ability impaired by alcohol in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(1) and improper passing in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128. Because defendant had a total of three alcohol related convictions and more than 20 total points on his lifetime driving record, the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") denied his 2012 application for re-licensure and, pursuant to DMV regulations adopted in 2012, he was deemed permanently ineligible for re-licensure (15 NYCRR§ 136.5 [b][2]). The issue raised here is whether coram nobis relief should be granted vacating the decades old guilty pleas in this court where the defendant is able to make a showing of hardship arising from the permanent loss of his driving privileges and he avers that at the time of his 1992 guilty pleas he could not possibly have known that such pleas and the subsequent 2012 DMV regulations would result in a lifetime suspension of his license to drive in this state.

In 2012, the DMV amended its regulations to provide for a lifetime review of a person's driving record when, among other things, a person with multiple alcohol or drug-related driving convictions applies for relicensing (15 NYCRR§ 136.5 [a]). The purpose of the regulations is to take disciplinary action for the protection of the applicant and the public (15 NYCRR § 136.1 [a]). A person with five or more alcohol or drug-related convictions is permanently barred from obtaining a driver's license (15 NYCRR § 136.5 [b][1]). Of relevance here, a person with three or more alcohol or drug related convictions may reapply for driving privileges five years after expiration of the statutory revocation period (15 NYCRR §136.5 [b][3][i][ii]). However, a person with three or more alcohol or drug-related driving convictions who also has one or more "serious driving offense" may never be relicensed (15 NYCRR § 136.5[b][2]). The definition of "serious driving offense" includes the situation where the driver has amassed 20 or more points from any traffic violations (15 NYCRR § 136.5[a][2][iv]).

Applying these DMV regulations, defendant may apply to be relicensed because he has three (not five or more) prior alcohol related convictions: a 1992 VTL§ 1192 (1) conviction in this court; a 1999 VTL§ 1193 conviction in Ravena Village Court; and a 2009 VTL§ 1192 (1) conviction in the New Baltimore Town Court. However, a review of his lifetime driving record and the 25-year look back period shows that he had more than 30 points on his license when he applied for re-licensure in 2012. Therefore, he also meets the DMV definition of "serious driving offense," having amassed 20 or more points from any traffic violation (15 NYCRR § 136.5 [a][2][iv]), which, in conjunction with his three alcohol-related driving convictions-results in a lifetime revocation of his driver's license. The defendant is unable to mount a direct challenge to the DMV regulations because the Court of Appeals has ruled that they do violate due process or offend the ex post facto clause (Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 29 N.Y.3d 202 [2017]). Instead, he contends that it is unfair and an undue hardship to permanently deprive him of driving privileges, in part, because of the impact of the 2012 DMV regulations on the thirty-year old convictions in this court. The People oppose defendant's application for coram nobis relief.

The New York Criminal Procedure Law codifies the requirements for coram nobis relief under CPL § 440.10. Notably, "where a motion is made under CPL § 440.10, a hearing to develop additional background facts is [not] invariably necessary" (People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799 [1985]). At a court appearance on September 8, 2022, defense counsel conceded on the record that a hearing is not required. Under these circumstances, this court will determine the application based on the written submissions (Satterfield, supra at 799). While the applicable statute sets out specific grounds for vacating a guilty plea (CPL § 410.10 (1) [a-k]), defendant does not allege in his written submission the specific ground(s) he is relying upon for the relief requested. A review of the grounds set forth under CPL § 410.10 (1) (a-k) indicates that none of them directly encompass the situation present in this case. Nonetheless, when the CPL§ 440.10 statute does not cover the precise situation for which the defendant seeks to set aside the judgment of conviction, the application may be made by relying on the common law writ of coram nobis (People v Bachert, 69 N.Y.2d 593 [1987]).

Treating the instant application as one for common law coram nobis relief, the main issue raised in the written submission concerns the fact that at the time of his 1992 pleas of guilty in this court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT