Decision and OrderMotion to Seal a Criminal Conviction Pursuant to CPL §160.59 Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) §160.59, the defendant1 moves to have the record of his conviction sealed. In 2002, the defendant was convicted of Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the fourth degree (Penal Law §221.15) a Class “A” Misdemeanor. At the time, the defendant was 19 years of age. Subsequent to this conviction, the defendant has been arrested 3 times. His latest arrest in 2013, was for a Class “A” Misdemeanor, but the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and sealed pursuant to CPL §160.50.2 In both 2007 and 2010, the defendant was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated under VTL §1192(2) and VTL §1192(3) which are unclassified misdemeanors. Both of the cases resulted in the defendant pleading guilty to violations under VTL §1192(1). The District Attorney’s Office took no position on the defendant’s application to have his 2002 conviction sealed. In such a case, no hearing is required, and it is mandatory for the court to consider the equities involved and issue a written decision.From 2008 until 2011, the defendant was steadily employed by a research company. The defendant submitted a letter from the Executive Vice President of the company, wherein he received an excellent recommendation. The letter confirms what the defendant indicated in his sealing affidavit; he was leaving the company to pursue an advanced degree in biotech research. In 2017, the defendant graduated from SUNY at Purchase with cum laude honors, obtaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology and a minor in Chemistry. While attending Purchase College, the defendant volunteered for two semesters with the Science Student Support Services and provided mentoring services to students in the Natural Sciences. The Coordinator of the volunteer program submitted a sterling recommendation on the defendant’s behalf, indicating that the defendant is “passionate about entering the medical field…is well-prepared for the rigorous challenges before him,” and that he will be “a knowledgeable and committed professional.” The defendant also submitted a letter, dated December 2017, from the “Meals on Wheels” Volunteer Coordinator where the defendant volunteered, wherein the defendant was described as “prompt, courteous, efficient, [and] an absolute pleasure.” Currently, defendant is enrolled In the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School, getting a Masters in Biomedical Sciences. Thus far, he has obtained outstanding grades and hopes to transition into their medical school.Pursuant to CPL §160.59, an individual is only eligible to have an offense sealed if the defendant: has been convicted of a defined “eligible offense”; has not previously obtained sealing of a maximum number of convictions under either CPL §160.58 or CPL §160.59; has at least 10 years since the imposition of the sentence on the defendant’s latest conviction — with time tolled for periods of incarceration; has no undisposed arrests or charges pending; has not been convicted of any crime after the date of the entry of judgment of the last conviction for which sealing is sought; and has not been convicted of two or more felonies. The defendant is eligible on all fronts.CPL §160.59(7) gives the court the discretion to consider specific facts and circumstances surrounding an individual’s personal history and conviction in determining whether sealing is appropriate. Some of the listed considerations which are pertinent to the case at bar include: the amount of time that has elapsed since the defendant’s last conviction; the character of the defendant; and any measures the defendant has taken toward rehabilitation such as participation in treatment programs, schooling, work, community service, and volunteer programs. The list of considerations contained in CPL §160.59 (7) is not meant to be exhaustive, merely illustrative. Further, a CPL §160.59(7)(f) asks courts to weigh “the impact of sealing the defendant’s record…upon his or her successful and productive re-entry and reintegration into society.”The underlying intent behind this relatively new provision in New York State Law, (CPL §160.59, enacted October 2017), was to assist those for whom a criminal conviction might stand in the way of gaining meaningful employment or otherwise advancing and constructively participating in society. When the legislation was under consideration, some dubbed it the “second chance” law, since there was a clear recognition that the collateral consequences of a prior eligible conviction might ultimately be counter-productive by excluding motivated individuals from improving upon their lot in life by forever branding that person with a criminal conviction, even when the conviction was over a decade old. Whether one is applying to Medical School or Wal-Mart, a criminal conviction can serve as a permanent bar toward pursuing advanced schooling or employment.Hence, the reviewing court must analyze the equities in each individual case and balance the past criminal transgression with that individual’s demonstrated desire to productively contribute to society and better him or herself. From the outset, this court does not find that this sealing will negatively impact public safety or the public’s confidence in and respect for the law (see CPL §160.59 [7][g]). However, this Court is clearly troubled by the defendant’s two DWI arrests subsequent to the 2002 criminal conviction for which sealing is sought. For someone who intends to become a medical professional, it is troubling to this Court that the defendant has made no mention of having participated in any type of rehabilitation for what may be a problem with alcohol. On the other hand, in virtually every other respect, the defendant has demonstrated a clear desire to improve upon his past. The defendant held steady employment for 3 years, graduated college with honors, committed himself to helping others by mentoring and volunteering, and has continued his education at The University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine by seeking an advanced degree in Biomedical Sciences. As well, legislatures throughout the country are reviewing the criminalization of possession of marijuana and this Court is uncertain how the offending conduct, for which he is requesting sealing, would be viewed by the criminal justice system today. As to the defendant’s DWI violations, this Court does not want to criminalize an addiction, if one exists, yet strongly urges the defendant to seek assistance if such is warranted.After balancing the equities involved, this Court will not stand in the way of the defendant’s clearly demonstrated efforts to continuous self-improvement and his drive to enter what is a most challenging profession. Without granting the sealing, this defendant’s continued advancement would in all likelihood come to an abrupt halt.Accordingly, the defendant’s sealing application pursuant to CPL §160.59 is granted.SO ORDEREDJune 5, 2018
