The People move this Court to restore the above-entitled matter to the calendar. On November 8, 2006, the Defendant was charged with violating Penal Law §221.05, Criminal Possession of Marijuana as a violation. On September 10, 2007, the Defendant was granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal by this Court pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §170.56. The Defendant opposes the People's application.

The basis of the People's application is that on September 10, 2007, in addition to being granted the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, the Defendant was sentenced on a related Criminal docket regarding a charge of Driving While Intoxicated. As part of the sentence, the Defendant's driving privileges were revoked and he was ordered to surrender his conditional license. To the astonishment of the entire courtroom, upon the Defendant surrendering his conditional license in open Court to the Court Clerk, marijuana was observed in plain view within the creases of the Defendant's conditional license. The Defendant was immediately arrested in Court and charged with a new count of violating Penal Law §221.05, Criminal Possession of Marijuana as a violation. The People argue that the new charge violates the terms and conditions of the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal. The Defendant argues that the new Criminal Possession of Marijuana charge occurred prior to the commencement of the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal period and therefore does not violate the terms of the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal.

It is clear that the Defendant had already been sentenced on the related docket and granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal regarding this docket at the time he surrendered his conditional license. The physical handing up of his conditional licence to the Court Clerk was merely perfunctory in nature and was performed after the sentencing and Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal had concluded. Therefore, the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal time period began to run immediately upon this Court granting said application. Consequently, although Defense Counsel's argument is artful, it is neither persuasive nor grounded in the underlying facts. Defendant's new arrest, in Court, for Criminal Possession of Marijuana instantly violated the terms and conditions of the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, i.e., that he not be re-arrested for six (6) months. [*2]

The People's motion to restore this matter is GRANTED. This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the Court.

Dated: December 4, 2007

ENTER:

____________________________________

Norman St. George, District Court Judge