People v. Nicholas
Decision Date | 11 February 2008 |
Docket Number | 38046. |
Citation | 854 N.Y.S.2d 877,19 Misc.3d 322,2008 NY Slip Op 28049 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. MARIA P. NICHOLAS, Defendant. |
Court | New York District Court |
Julie Hutchins, Public Defender, Watertown (Matthew Porter of counsel), for defendant.
Cindy Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Rodney Kyle of counsel), for plaintiff.
CPL 160.55 (1) provides for an automatic notification by the Court Clerk to various agencies that, based upon a conviction of a violation reduced from the original criminal charge, all records should be disposed of and sealed as provided by statute "unless the district attorney upon motion with not less than five days notice ... or the court on its own motion with not less than five days notice ... determines that the interests of justice require otherwise," so the defendant may be heard on the issue.
The defense argues that because the five days' notice was not given before the defendant entered a plea to the reduced charge and the motion was made only after the plea to the violation had been entered it should be considered untimely and the request be denied by the court. The People argue that the request was timely and the motion be considered.
CPL 160.55 states that "[u]pon the termination of a criminal proceeding" the automatic notification by the Court Clerk shall occur unless a five-day notice of a motion not to seal such records is given by the court or prosecutor. CPL 1.20 (16) and 160.50 (1) taken together provide that a "termination of a criminal action" (CPL 160.50 [1]) occurs "with the imposition of sentence" (CPL 1.20 [16] [c]). Inasmuch as the court has yet to impose sentence, stayed on its own volition on November 12, 2007 to address the opposition to the People's request to not seal the record under CPL 160.55 (1), no sealing can occur automatically so the issue of denying the prosecutor's motion under CPL 160.55 (1) is moot being premature as the operation of the statute cannot yet take place.
Professor Peter Preiser (Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 160.50, at 713 [1992 ed]) observed:
In his 2004 Practice Commentaries for the same section he said:
(Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 160.50, at 607 [2004 ed].)
It is this "procedural inconsistency" at issue in this case, where on the one hand the clerk is directed by statute to automatically seal the case, while on the other hand it also provides for a five-day delay initially if a motion is made to not seal the records.
Professor Preiser's recommendation in his 1992 Practice Commentaries was that if the provision to allow the "right to the benefits ... is to remain, the procedure should allow time for the motion prior to the clerk's automatic initiation of the process" (at 713). Later in his 2004 Commentaries, the issue not having been addressed by legislation, he assumed the "gap" had been "worked out administratively" (at 607).
In 1980, two courts dealt with the timing of the five days' minimum notice.
In People v Schleyer (192 Misc 2d 113 [2002]), the court explained:
In People v Gartenberg (105 Misc 2d 657 [1980]), the court reviewed CPL 160.55 in response to the issues in that case which provides insight to deal with those raised by the defense in this case, even though the automatic sealing provision now a part of CPL 160.55 (1) was not yet part of the statute.
In 2004, People v Anonymous (7 AD3d 309 [2004]) dealt with the interplay of the automatic sealing required under CPL 160.50 (1), an oral application by the prosecutor to oppose the sealing of the record, and the court's conduct in response to the situation.
In People v Anonymous, the facts show that "immediately after a jury acquitted defendant, . . . the trial court, upon oral application of the People, stayed the sealing of the record for 30 days, without explanation and over the objection of defense counsel" who argued "that the order staying the record be vacated inasmuch as it failed to comply with the requirements of CPL 160.50" (id. at 310).
The Court ruled:
(Id. at 310.)
The court agrees with Professor Preiser's conclusion that the five days' notice of a motion to not seal the record is required to be given to the defendant either by the prosecutor or the court at any time prior to the defendant's plea to a charge reduced from a crime to a violation under CPL 160.55 (1) to "allow time for the motion prior to the clerk's automatic initiation for the process" (1992 Practice Commentaries at 713) at the "termination of a criminal proceeding" (CPL 160.55 [1]).
In this way no defendant will be "surprised" by a motion either by the prosecutor or the court to not seal a record one might reasonably expect to be sealed upon pleading...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mauro v. Hireright, 5:19-CV-1343 (GLS/ATB)
...individuals who were arrested for a more serious offense, but were ultimately convicted of a petty offense. See People v. Nicholas, 19 Misc. 3d 322, 331-32 (City Ct. 2008) (discussion of purpose of both statutes). 9. In Baunach, the court stated thatThus, it would be inconsistent with the i......
-
People v. S.L.
...statute ( CPL § 160.55 ) is the avoidance of public stigma attendant with arrest and conviction of an offense ( People v. Nicholas , 19 Misc. 3d 322, 331, 854 N.Y.S.2d 877 [Watertown City Ct. 2008] ). The limited sealing resulting from CPL § 160.55 can be addressed by ensuring that record o......
-
People v. Nicholas, 2008 NY Slip Op 51165(U) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 6/9/2008), 38046.
...OF JEFFERSON CO., By: Attorney Matthew Porter, Watertown, New York. JAMES C. HARBERSON, J. This decision is a follow-up to People v. Nicholas (2008), 19 Misc 3d 322, in which the defendant was allowed to withdraw her plea for the reasons stated therein and then elected to plea to a violatio......
-
People v. Tyre, 2008 NY Slip Op 51164(U) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 6/9/2008)
... ... Nicholas (2008), 19 Misc 3d 322 ... In each case after the defendant plead to a violation under PL 240.20 the Court conducted a hearing on the issue of whether it was in the interest of justice to bar the sealing of the records under CPL 160.55(1). The Court based on these hearings as well ... ...