People v. Alonso-Estevez
| Decision Date | 04 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015BX037601.,2015BX037601. |
| Citation | 36 N.Y.S.3d 48 (Table) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Tanya ALONSO–ESTEVEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx County by Antigone Curis, Assistant District Attorney, for the People.
John Paul DeVerna, Esq., for Defendant.
Defendant is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (PL § 220.03), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree (VTL § 511[1][a] ), and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Second Degree (VTL § 511[2][a][iv] ).
Defendant moves for an order 1) dismissing the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient; 2) precluding the offering of any statements and/or identification evidence for which defendant has not received notice pursuant to CPL § 710.30 ; 3) suppressing evidence, or in the alternative, granting a Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearing; 4) directing the People provide responses to defendant's request for a bill of particulars and demand to produce; 5) precluding the People from introducing at trial any evidence of defendant's prior convictions or bad acts; 6) directing the People to furnish defendant with Brady material; 7) directing that any hearings granted in this case be held at least twenty (20) days prior to the commencement of trial in order to allow sufficient time for the transcription of the minutes; and 8) granting defendant the right to make additional pretrial motions and the right to amend and/or supplement this motion if made necessary or appropriate by the People's future disclosure.
The factual allegations in the accusatory instrument, sworn to by PO Christian Campoverde, read as follows:
Deponent states that, [on or about August 11, 2015 at approximately 1:09 AM at Northeast corner of Melrose Avenue and East 152nd Street, County of the Bronx, State of New York], he observed defendant operating a 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander (PA License PlateNo. JSZ3741), keys in the ignition, engine running and said above-described vehicle was parked on the above-described street, a public highway.
Deponent further states that he obtained and read a teletype printout of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, whose computers are tied into our police computer for the purpose of obtaining records, which records were made and obtained in the regular course of business and which are regularly made in the course of business within a reasonable time after the event or occurrence, and said records show that the defendant's license to operate a motor vehicle was suspended or revoked in that the defendant had in effect ten or more suspensions on at least ten separate dates for failure to answer, appear, or pay a fine.
Deponent is further states that the basis for believing that the defendant knew or had reason to know that her license was suspended or revoked is as follows: The above DMV records revealed that defendant's license was suspended for failure to answer a traffic summons, and all such summons have printed on them “[i]f you do not answer this ticket by mail within fifteen (15) days, your license will be suspended.” The suspension occurs automatically (by computer) within 4 weeks of the defendant's failure to answer.
Deponent is further informed by informant that informant's basis for believing that the defendant knew or had reason to know that her license was suspended or revoked is as follows: The Department of Motor Vehicles records revealed that defendant's license was suspended for failure to pay Driver Responsibility Assessment and all such Driver Responsibility Assessment Statements are mailed to the driver's address once per year with an assessment statement due within seventy-five (75) days and all such statements have printed on them, “Your New York State driver license (or privilege to drive in New York State) will be suspended if you do not pay the Minimum Annual Payment amount,” and the Department of Motor Vehicles records revealed that defendant was sent a Suspension Order notifying him that his New York State driver license and/or privilege of obtaining a New York State driver license was suspended for failure to pay Driver Responsibility Assessment, the suspension occurs automatically (by computer) on the 75th day of non-payment.
Deponent further states that, he observed defendant to have in her custody and control, inside a purse she was carrying, a clear container containing five (5) rectangular-shape pills with the initial G3722 written on it. The deponent further states that, defendant stated in sum and substance, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE, IT'S XANAX.
Deponent states, that based upon deponent's training and experience, which includes training in the recognition of controlled substance, and its packaging, the aforementioned substance is alleged and believed to be XANAX.
On October 1, 2015, the People filed with the court a certified copy of defendant's Department of Motor Vehicles Abstract of Driving Record (“DMV abstract”).
Defendant argues that the information must be dismissed because her arrest was made without probable cause. With respect to the charges of VTL §§ 511(1)(a) and 511(2)(a)(iv), defendant avers that the People cannot establish that she knew or had reason to know that her driver's license was suspended. With respect to the charge of PL § 220.03, defendant argues that this charge should be dismissed since she has a prescription for the medication found in her possession. In support, defendant submits what appears to be a black and white photocopy depicting two medication bottles labeled Alprazolam prescribed to defendant.
In opposition, the People argue that the information is facially sufficient in that it provides 1) adequately detailed facts of an evidentiary nature to support each and every element of the offenses charged and 2) suitable notice to defendant to prepare a defense to the offenses charged. Citing People v. Brown, 15 Misc.3d 1143(A) (Crim Ct, N.Y. County 2007), the People argue that the complaint alleges sufficient facts to support each element of VTL §§ 511(1)(a) and 511(2)(a)(iv). The People assert that similar to Brown, defendant is charged with aggravated unlicensed operation based upon suspensions arising from the issuances of traffic summonses, defendant's failure to answer said summonses, and defendant's resultant failure to pay the fines associated with said summonses. The People note that defendant had a total of seventeen suspensions on eleven separate dates. Three of the suspensions stemmed from defendant's failure to answer traffic summonses, each with a warning imprinted on its face indicating that the failure to answer said summons would result in a license suspension. The People further assert that the fact that defendant's license was suspended is corroborated by the certified DMV Abstract. Since each element of the offenses of VTL §§ 511(1)(a) and 511(2)(a)(iv) are sufficiently pled, the People argue that defendant's motion should be dismissed. As to the charge of PL § 220.03, the People note that defendant's attempt to raise a defense or a factual dispute is not a proper subject for a motion to dismiss.
Criminal Procedure Law § 170.35 lists, in an all-inclusive manner, the following seven grounds upon which a local criminal court accusatory instrument may be dismissed: 1) it is defective within the meaning of section 170.35 ; 2) the defendant has received immunity from prosecution for the offense charged; 3) the prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution; 4) the prosecution is untimely; 5) the defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial; 6) there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged; or 7) dismissal is required in furtherance of justice. An arrest effectuated without probable cause is not a proper ground upon which a court may dismiss an information.
It is well settled that an accusatory instrument must contain facts of an evidentiary nature that support or tend to support the crimes charged (CPL § 100.15[3] ; People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729 [1986] ) and contain non-hearsay allegations that establish, if true, every element of the crimes charged (CPL § 100.40[1][c] ). Further, an accusatory instrument must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes charged. CPL § 100.40(1)(b) ; Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686. Reasonable cause to believe that a defendant committed the crimes charged “exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it.” CPL § 70 .10. “In order for the reasonable cause standard to be met, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument must describe conduct that constitutes the crime charged.” People v. Hightower, 18 N.Y.3d 249, 254, 938 N.Y.S.2d 500, 961 N.E.2d 1111 (2011).
In reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial sufficiency, the court must assume the truth of the factual allegations and consider all favorable inferences drawn therefrom. CPL §§ 100.40 and 100.15 ; People v. Mellish, 4 Misc.3d 1013(A) (Crim Ct, N.Y. County 2004). The facts alleged need only establish the existence of a prima facie case, even if those facts would be insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079 (1986). “The law does not require that the information contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charge, only that the crime and the factual basis therefore be sufficiently alleged.” People v. Sylla, 7 Misc.3d 8, 10, 792 N.Y.S.2d 764 (App Term, 2d Dept.2005). As such, “[s]o long as the factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial