In lieu of $500,000 cash bail or a $1 million bond, Charlotte DePersia has been locked up in the Suffolk County Correctional Facility since April 10, when she was arraigned for allegedly violating her probation for drunk driving and vehicular assault.
The victims of the in Bridgehampton — which led to the East Hampton woman's probation — already when DePersia for her repeat drunk driving offense. And now they are refusing to meet with the judge who promised that DePersia would finally be sent to upstate prison if she consumed alcohol while on probation.
"We can only deduce that your reason for wanting to speak with us would be an attempt to justify not sending Charlotte DePersia to upstate prison, as you stated you would do, several times on the record ..." reads an email to Judge William Condon signed by Matthew Gluck and Lindsay Soyka, of East Quogue, and Mark and Karyn Scholack, of New Jersey.
Enclosed with the email was the transcript of DePersia's Dec. 13, 2011, sentencing. Highlighted in yellow are all instances of Condon telling DePersia that she would have no margin for error during her probation, and that having one drink would land her in prison.
The victims' letter concludes, "We have full faith that you will abide by your word and impose the sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years at an upstate prison for Charlotte's probation violation."
The sentence comes at the recommendation of Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota.
DePersia stands accused of having two drinks in Montauk, recorded by an ankle monitor that measures alcohol in sweat. Prosecutors say she admitted to the Probation Department that she had two glasses of wine. She entered a plea of "denial" April 10.
DePersia is due back in court Tuesday. Her attorney did not immediately return a call placed Thursday afternoon.
Soyka, who previously told Patch she suffered a broken nose, bruised knees and fractured eye socket during the crash, requiring multiple surgeries, also has a civil case pending against DePersia.
That being said, I find the avidity with which the injured couples are seeking vengeance to be extremely distasteful. Their refusal to meet with the judge is deplorable. One would guess that the judge wanted their input into a sentencing recommendation that would provide Ms. DePersia with treatment in addition to incarceration. But the couples seem only interested in seeing her sent "to prison upstate" which, I presume, is code for a particularly vile penitentiary. As things stand, Ms. DePersia's life is in ruins. Since she had virtually no accident insurance, the injured parties will strip her and her husband of every nickle in multi-million dollar damage awards all 'round. (Although, since should couldn't make bail, one wonders how deep those pockets really are.) Enough. I think that any objective observer would say that the pound of flesh has been rendered. A jot of charity wouldn't be out of order.
There are always two sides to every story, yes. However, you say "she wasn't driving when this happened." Ms. DePersia, I understand, was driving with an open cup of wine in her car when she hit the victims. And, while I can understand a "bobble," given a bad day - you make it sound so minor. If she "bobbled" and then drove, and caused an accident that, frankly, could have killed people, she should take responsibility. Given her history, she should NOT be allowed to "BOBBLE" ever again, behind the wheel of a car. A prison term may be a blessing for her and the rest of us. And I say this with compassion.
As I understand it, Mrs D, made a choice to get in a vehicle and drive under the influence.. She created havoc in other innocent people's lives including an unborn child... is it your opinion that they should not be compensated for what they had to endure?? That they should bear the burden and cost for Mrs D's choices? It seems as though you would like them to be victims again..no? additionally your other statement about the thing you know... are your Mr D? If that is the case it would clearly explain why you would like to yet again explain her crime and minimize it, because that is what it is .. not a bobble a crime.. i might recommend with all you know you may want to look into all anon as you clearly are an enabler
The statement, "she wasn't driving when this happened", refers to Ms. DePersia's drinking at Gurney's which violated her probation, not the traffic accident. to Daniel: Tort law in America is a "get rich quick" system wherein lesser injuries are overcompensated and greater injuries are undercompensated. Based on their behavior, It would appear that the victims are aiming to be in the prior class. to Jaguar-Guy: There are at least two reasons for the victims to "posture for money". First, evidence of Ms. DePersia's actual incarceration will weigh on the jury's damage award and, second, broadcasting their version of events pollutes the jury pool in their favor. If the victims are not trying to finesse the civil damage award, and are simply out for vengeance, their behavior is equally appalling. After all, Ms. DePersia did not set out with premeditation to do them harm. It was an ACCIDENT. She never consciously tried to harm them. The same cannot be said of them.
whether of not she had some premeditation or conscious to harm them these are some public records or what she did choose "Thomas Spota said that since 2003 DePersia has been arrested three times for driving under the influence of alcohol prior to the incident" She Choose after this to get into a vehicle with a glass of wine and drive She choose to ignore her gift of probation and drink not a sip, not a glass but 2 glasses of wine. whether she drove or not is irreverent .In my book the choices that she made did make it intentional and a deliberate act that she should be responsible for not an accident. With your regard to blaming the victims in this case... I am truly dumb founded... do you have any idea the medical costs alone, not to mention the sociological ones?.. As long as you minimize her choices and make excuses and not hold her accountable for what she did.. she will continue now let me give you a definition Enabler: : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by helping that individual avoid the consequences of such behavior
You know Jack fatheadsize.
Now, she can go away. Bye-bye Charlotte D.
Ms. DePersia is unquestionably an alcoholic who has made the mistakes typical of alcoholics. One of those caused harm to others. It is appropriate that Ms. DePersia suffer a criminal penalty for her misdeed. It is also appropriate that her victims be compensated for their damages. What is inappropriate (and repellent) is that her victims militate publicly to finesse the justice system and to increase Mrs. DePersia's suffering beyond that which the normal course of justice would decree. Ms. DePersia is going to prison. One hopes that the judge will sentence her to a facility wherein her alcoholism can be treated. It is the compassionate thing to do and doesn't lessen the penalty. Cruel: "disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings" (Merriam-Webster)
one thing you are correct about it was cruel of Mrs D to get into a car drunk whit out regard for anyone and drive.. if you are going to talk compassion... why is it only for the one who created the situation? or possibly the Cruel way that you wish to continually blame the victim's and expect them to be responsible for Mrs D's choices... I hope they continue to use the media and any other outlet at there disposal to get what they deserve
And I also believe in the opportunity for justice... I guess in the house you grew up in they left that one out.