Citation Numbers: 137 Misc. 2d 856
Judges: Douglass
Filed Date: 12/16/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
The defendant is charged in two indictments with selling vials of crack for $10 to undercover officers on different occasions in June of 1987, when he was 17 years old.
As might be expected, he has been a serious behavioral problem and has a long history of involvement in the Family Court. While these matters were pending in this court, his Family Court matters eventually culminated in an order placing him in a Division for Youth rehabilitative center for delinquent children, where he will be held until his 18th birthday. At this point, therefore, two components of the criminal justice system are both focusing its resources on this 17-year-old defendant. This court processing two indictments, while the Division for Youth attempts to deal with the defendant’s problem while he is a resident of the rehabilitative center.
This dual approach is counterproductive, since if the rehabilitative programs are successful, they would be seriously undermined, if the defendant is placed in a position, where after discharge from the rehabilitative center he starts life with both the encumbrance of a conviction (albeit youthful offender) and the requirement that he report to a probation officer, particularly one who has never been involved in the development of the treatment plan of the rehabilitative center.
The District Attorney opposes the motion by arguing that the reports from the rehabilitative center suggest that the defendant’s adjustment, at this time, at the center is at best marginal.
But, the issue here is not whether the rehabilitative effort of the Division for Youth will be successful. A significant number of individuals in any of the various rehabilitative treatment modalities, i.e., probation, parole, the Division for Youth, will not at the halfway mark in their treatment reveal records which will indicate that the treatment has been successful. Moreover, the unfortunate fact is that a substantial number of people that move through the various supervisory and treatment programs within the criminal justice system are not rehabilitated. Each component in the system, however, must work on the assumption that the other components will use their best effort to successfully discharge their statutory responsibility. This is particularly true when considering the efforts of the Division for Youth, otherwise, we would write off hundreds of young people by simply assuming nothing could be done to bring about their adjustment.
Since the system must work on the assumption that the various rehabilitative programs will achieve their goals, it would be sufficient to dismiss these indictments merely on the grounds that continued prosecution will undermine the efforts of the Division for Youth. The considerations which a court must consider in deciding "interest of justice motions” are,
I conclude, therefore, that since this defendant is currently enrolled in a rehabilitative center for delinquent children the interest of justice requires that these two indictments pending in the adult system be dismissed.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Counsel is notified that the matter has been recalendared for January 20, 1988, from the date of this order, so that on the return date the District Attorney can indicate whether she intends to appeal or move to dismiss this order.