People v. Adrovic
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CR-050366-18KN |
| Citation | 69 Misc.3d 563,130 N.Y.S.3d 614 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Mirsad ADROVIC, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
For the defendant: Sneha Dhanapal, The Legal Aid Society
For the People: Arianna Beltrez, Kings County District Attorney's Office
The defendant, charged with violations of Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs as both a traffic infraction and a misdemeanor ( V.T.L. §§ 1192(1), (3) ), as well as two counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (P.L. § 220.03) and one count of Failure to Obey Traffic Control Signal ( V.T.L. § 1111 ), now moves for an order dismissing the information pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b).
After careful review of the defendant's motion, the People's response, and all relevant legal authority, the motion to dismiss is granted. The Court finds that 105 chargeable days have accrued since arraignment.
On November 19, 2018, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on which the highest charge was a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of one year. P.L. § 220.03; V.T.L. § 1193. Thus, the People had 90 days to be ready to proceed to trial. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). The defendant was released on his own recognizance and the case was adjourned to January 10, 2019 for conversion. The People served and filed a statement of readiness and forensic toxicology report off-calendar on January 9, 2019.
51 chargeable days.
On January 10, 2019, the People maintained their readiness for trial. The case was adjourned for Discovery by Stipulation to February 7, 2019. Because adjournments for discovery are designated in the statute as "other proceedings concerning the defendant," this time period is excludable from the 30.30 calculation. See C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a) ; People v. Dorilas , 19 Misc. 3d 75, 860 N.Y.S.2d 797 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2008).
0 chargeable days.
On February 7, 2019, the People served some discovery materials on the defendant and the case was adjourned to March 11, 2019 for hearings and trial. Under the 2019 rules for calculating speedy trial time, this adjournment is excludable pursuant to People v. Reed , 19 A.D.3d 312, 798 N.Y.S.2d 47 (1st Dept. 2005) ; People v. Greene , 223 A.D.2d 474, 637 N.Y.S.2d 79 (1st Dept. 1996). But see People v. Collins , 190 Misc. 2d 72, 735 N.Y.S.2d 912 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2001).
0 chargeable days.
On March 11, 2019, the People were not ready for trial and requested 9 days. The case was adjourned to April 9, 2019 for hearings and trial. Because the People had previously announced their readiness to proceed, they are not charged for the time period of the adjournment in excess of the time they requested. People v. Nielsen , 306 A.D.2d 500, 761 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2d Dept. 2003) ; People v. Williams , 229 A.D.2d 603, 646 N.Y.S.2d 142 (2d Dept. 1996).
9 chargeable days.
On April 9, 2019, the People were not ready for trial because the arresting officer was not available, and the People requested 8 days. The case was adjourned for hearings and trial to May 23, 2019. The Court indicated that the People would be charged until a statement of readiness was served and filed, with a minimum of 8 days chargeable. On April 19, 2019, the People served and filed a statement of readiness, thereby tolling the speedy trial clock. See People v. Stirrup , 91 N.Y.2d 434, 671 N.Y.S.2d 433, 694 N.E.2d 434 (1998).
10 chargeable days.
On May 23, 2019, the defendant did not appear in court. A bench warrant was ordered and stayed and the case was adjourned to June 4, 2019 for the defendant to appear and for hearings and trial. Although there is no indication in the court file whether or not the People were ready for trial on that date, this period is excludable due to the defendant's absence. E.g. , People v. Notholt , 242 A.D.2d 251, 662 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1st Dept. 1997) ; People v. Parker , 186 A.D.2d 593, 588 N.Y.S.2d 390 (2d Dept. 1992).
0 chargeable days.
On June 4, 2019, the defendant appeared and the Court denied the defendant's motions to dismiss for facial insufficiency and denial of speedy trial. The case was adjourned for hearings and trial to July 10, 2019. The adjournment following the defendant's return on the bench warrant is excludable. People v. Berger , 2 Misc. 3d 46, 774 N.Y.S.2d 247 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2003).
0 chargeable days.
On July 10, 2019, the People announced ready for trial. Defense counsel, however, was engaged elsewhere, and so the case was adjourned for hearings and trial to September 17, 2019. This adjournment was at the request of defense counsel and so it is excludable. C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(b) ; see also People v. Barden , 27 N.Y.3d 550, 36 N.Y.S.3d 80, 55 N.E.3d 1053 (2016) ; People v. Brown , 149 A.D.3d 584, 53 N.Y.S.3d 626 (1st Dept. 2017).
0 chargeable days.
On September 17, 2019, the People announced ready for trial and served additional discovery on the defendant. The Court conducted a combined Dunaway /Mapp /Huntley /Ingle hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel requested an opportunity to submit a written brief; the Court granted that request. The case was adjourned to October 21, 2019 for decision on the defendant's motion to suppress. Adjournments for motion practice are specifically excluded by the statute. C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).
0 chargeable days.
On October 21, 2019, there was no decision and the case was adjourned to October 31, 2019 for decision. Adjournments for the court to decide a motion are excludable. See , e.g. , People v. Dean , 45 N.Y.2d 651, 657, 412 N.Y.S.2d 353, 384 N.E.2d 1277 (1978) ; People v. Singh , 288 A.D.2d 404, 734 N.Y.S.2d 457 (2d Dept. 2001).
0 chargeable days.
On October 31, 2019, there was no decision and the case was adjourned to November 13, 2019 for decision. The case was then advanced to November 8, 2019, whereupon the Court rendered its decision suppressing a portion of the defendant's statement, as well as the results of a blood draw. The case was then adjourned to November 13, 2019 for trial. The time for the Court to decide the motion is excludable, supra . Additionally, the period from November 8 to November 13 is excludable as a reasonable period of time for the People to prepare for trial following the determination of the motion to suppress. See People v. David , 253 A.D.2d 642, 645, 679 N.Y.S.2d 354 (1st Dept. 1998).
0 chargeable days.
On November 13, 2019, the People announced not ready for trial and requested 7 days because the assigned ADA was on trial on another case. The case was adjourned to December 9, 2019 for trial. Because the People had previously announced ready for trial, they are not charged for the period of the adjournment in excess of the time they requested. People v. Nielsen , 306 A.D.2d 500, 761 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2d Dept. 2003) ; People v. Williams , 229 A.D.2d 603, 646 N.Y.S.2d 142 (2d Dept. 1996).
7 chargeable days.
On December 9, 2019, the People again announced not ready for trial, because the assigned ADA was out of the office on a personal matter, and requested 7 days. The case was adjourned to December 16, 2019.
7 chargeable days.
On December 16, 2019, the People requested a motion schedule to reargue the Court's suppression decision with respect to the results of the blood draw. A motion schedule was set and the case was adjourned for decision and trial to January 21, 2020. Adjournments for motion practice are excludable under C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a). See also People v. Kelly , 33 A.D.3d 461, 826 N.Y.S.2d 183 (1st Dept. 2006). 0 chargeable days.
On January 1, 2020, new legislation went into effect that imposed additional discovery requirements on the People before they could be deemed ready for trial. Legislative amendments that take effect during the pendency of a case apply to subsequent proceedings, see Simonson v. Internat'l Bank , 14 N.Y.2d 281, 289, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E.2d 427 (1964), but do not serve to invalidate prior proceedings, see Berkovitz v. Arbib & Houlberg, Inc. , 230 N.Y. 261, 270, 130 N.E. 288 (1921) ; Charbonneau v. State , 148 Misc. 2d 891, 561 N.Y.S.2d 876 (Ct. Cl. 1990). Therefore, the changes in the law effective as of January 1, 2020 do not invalidate the People's previous statements of readiness. However, beginning on January 1, 2020, the People reverted to a state of unreadiness and could not be deemed ready until filing the certificate of compliance required by C.P.L. § 245.50.
This Court has previously held that, because the legislature has deemed 15 days a reasonable period of time for the People to comply with their discovery obligations under C.P.L. § 245.10(1), that 15 days are excludable from the speedy trial calculation pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a). People v. Roland , 67 Misc. 3d 330, 121 N.Y.S.3d 550 (Kings Co. Crim. Ct. 2020). Consequently, the People had 15 days from January 1, 2020, the effective date of the legislation, to serve and file a Certificate of Compliance and announce ready for trial. The People did not serve and file a Certificate of Compliance in that time period. Nor did the People have a Certificate of Compliance on January 21, 2020 when the case was called on the record. However, the Court also did not have a decision on the People's motion to reargue, and the case was adjourned to January 28, 2020 for the Court's decision. Again, adjournments for the purpose of determining a motion are excludable, regardless of whether the People would have been ready for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pennant
...the People would get additional time to disclose 156 N.Y.S.3d 701 these hard-to-obtain items without penalty." People v. Adrovic , 69 Misc. 3d 563, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020)While the People could have availed themselves of any or all of the foregoing opportunities, in a tr......
-
People v. Godfred
...on the eve of trial. ( People v. Leonardo , 75 Misc.3d 1237(A), 2022 WL 3364790 [Crim. Ct. Queens County 2022] ; People v. Adrovic , 69 Misc.3d 563, 571, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 [Crim. Ct. Kings County 2020] ). The old restrictive rules also "inhibit[ed], at great taxpayer cost," defendants’ abili......
-
People v. Pennant
...granting of the motion the People would get additional time to disclose these hard-to-obtain items without penalty." People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) While the People could have availed themselves of any or all of the foregoing opportunities, in......
-
People v. Pennant
...granting of the motion the People would get additional time to disclose these hard-to-obtain items without penalty." People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) While the People could have availed themselves of any or all of the foregoing opportunities, in......