Case Details

Our client was charged with the misdemeanor of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree. The allegation, in short, was that our client facilitated his co-defendant in the commission of an assault. Right as the misdemeanor speedy trial clock expired, the People took a CPL 170.20 adjournment (a delay to present the case to the grand jury instead of proceed in the lower court on the misdemeanor). Right before a subsequent appearance in the local court on the misdemeanor, the DA served on the defense a CPL 190.50 notice (a notice that they intended to present the case to the grand jury for felony prosecution). At the city court appearance that afternoon, we immediately moved to withdraw the motion to dismiss and stated our client’s desire to enter a plea to the misdemeanor as charged. It was imperative to lock in a plea before the case was indicted, ensuring double jeopardy barred further prosecution on more serious charges of what was essentially the same case. The Court accepted the misdemeanor plea over the People’s objection and sentenced our client to a conditional discharge. Undeterred, the People still indicted our client a few weeks later on charges of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, arising out of the very same criminal transaction for which he had just pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. This indictment carried with it the possibility of up to 40 years in prison. Ten days before the scheduled arraignment in county court, we filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory double jeopardy grounds, arguing that both CPL 40.20 and 40.40 barred a second prosecution for what was essentially the same offense conduct, as the offenses in the indictment could have been joined to the original facilitation charge but the People failed to do so. At the county court arraignment on the indictment, having been alerted to the meritorious issue from the earliest stage, the court rejected the People’s argument that the severity of the indicted offense warranted a high bail, released our client on his own recognizance, and set a period of time for the People to respond to the motion to dismiss and for the defense to reply. At the next appearance, the Court dismissed the indictment and barred further prosecution of our client. The result was that, instead of facing a set of charges carrying with it the possibility of 40 years in prison, our client could put the case behind him and rest assured it was over.