Through sheer persistence, Mr. Corletta achieved a rare disposition in prosecution-oriented Ontario County in People v. S.P. (Ont. Co. Ct., 11/18).

          In that case, the client was charged with Felony Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs; a difficult charge to defend. However, missing was key “Drug Recognition” testimony, thereby weakening the People's proof. Mr. Corletta attacked the case following Indictment, challenging several aspects of the stop and arrest, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury and focused on the lack of Drug Recognition evidence.

          In addition, Mr. Corletta was able to avoid any suspension pending prosecution of his client's license, which was needed for both work and school, as the client resided in a remote rural county.

          Through negotiation, Mr. Corletta was able to achieve a misdemeanor disposition with Interim Probation, during which the client was allowed to continue to drive.

          Once the client complete Interim Probation, the charge would be reduced to Misdemeanor Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs under VTL §1192(4) and the client could receive a Conditional Discharge, as the client has already completed treatment and will be under Court supervision for nearly 2 years by the time of sentencing.

          This is unheard of disposition in a prosecution-oriented county. Most importantly, the client who lives in a remote rural county was able to maintain a driver license allowing them to continue working full time and to continue going to college full time, which in the end enhances the client’s position at work. The client and family were grateful for Mr. Corletta’s hard work and perseverance in this case. Not having a license while living in a rural county with no public transportation can be a crushing impediment to working and earning a living.

          Driving While Ability Impaired By Drugs cases presents unique issues, which are different from Driving While Intoxicated cases, and require additional expertise regarding the effects of different types of drugs. There is further no standardized level for drug impairment, like with alcohol, which creates challenges for lawyers and juries in interpreting the proof.