People v. Bartley
| Decision Date | 05 April 2024 |
| Citation | 209 N.Y.S.3d 802 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Damion BARTLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
For the defendant: Anthony Stagner of the Brooklyn Defender Services (astagner@bds.org)
For the People: ADA Michelle Munneke (munnekem@brooklynda.org)
The defendant, Damion Bartley, is charged by felony complaint with Burglary in the Third Degree and other related charges in four separate criminal actions. The defendant was arraigned on all four criminal actions on March 8, 2024, in lower criminal court on the felony complaint. At his arraignment, bail was set on the defendant at $5,000.00 cash, $10,000.00 partially secured bond, and $10,000.00 insurance company bond on three of the criminal actions and $1.00 on the fourth criminal action for the sum total of $15,001.00 cash, $30,000.00 partially secured bond, and $30,000.00 insurance company bond.
After several adjournments, the criminal action was ultimately adjourned to March 20, 2024, and the defendant appeared before this Court where the People offered a plea by superior court information to one count of Burglary in the Third Degree on each felony complaint with a sentence of five years of probation to run concurrently. The People did not inform this Court that the grand jury had voted an indictment on three of the criminal actions and the People did not file a certificate of indictment. On March 22, 2024, the People filed a Certificate of Indictment on three of the criminal actions, charging Burglary in the Third Degree as the top count on each action. The fourth action (which was the only case with $1.00 bail set), was not indicted. The defendant then orally moved this Court to review and reduce the defendant’s bail.
In support of his application, the defendant argued that his mother has appeared in court on his behalf on every court date; that the defendant is 18 years old; that he has never been previously arrested; that his family could make lower bail but not the current amount set; and that the People were offering a non-incarceration disposition.
The People opposed the application and countered that criminal court was divested of jurisdiction to hear the bail application asserting that the Miscellaneous Motions Part in Supreme Court is where the bail modification motion should be brought; that although it was the defendant’s first arrest, he had amassed four cases in a short period of time and that he is facing significant jail time, despite a probation offer from the People.
After hearing oral argument on March 22, 2024, the defendant’s application to modify bail was denied from the bench with a written decision to follow. For the reasons set forth on the record on March 22, 2024, and more fully discussed below, the motion is denied.
A felony complaint is an accusatory instrument used to initiate felony charges against a defendant in a local criminal court but cannot be used as a basis to prosecute the felony charges (CPL § 1.20[8]). A local criminal court has ‘preliminary jurisdiction’ when a felony complaint is used to initiate a criminal action in local criminal court, and such local criminal court may conduct proceedings with respect to the felony complaint that will lead to prosecution and final disposition of the action in a superior court having trial jurisdiction once an indictment is filed in superior court (CPL § 1.20[25]). The jurisdictional power of the lower criminal court continues unless proscribed by practice or law (Judiciary Law § 2-a).
An indictment is an accusation by a grand jury, charging a defendant with the commission of a crime (CPL §§ 1.20[3] & 200.10). An indictment, in pertinent part, is an instrument charging a crime; defining the geographical jurisdiction; and containing a concise statement of the charges, the name of the superior court, and the signature of the grand jury foreman (CPL § 200.50). A superior court has trial jurisdiction when the indictment is "filed with such court, and when such court has authority to accept a plea to, try or otherwise finally dispose of such accusatory instrument" (CPL § 1.20[24]).
[1] A local criminal court is vested with preliminary jurisdiction over felony complaints filed therein (CPL § 10.30[2]) and is only divested of preliminary jurisdiction when an indictment is filed in superior court that vests the superior court with trial jurisdiction (CPL §§ 10.30[1]; 200.10; People v. Gervais, 195 Misc.2d 129, 756 N.Y.S.2d 390 [Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2003]). During any period where a local criminal court maintains preliminary jurisdiction over a pending felony complaint, it may decide non-dispositive matters that do not interfere with the prosecution of the criminal case itself (Gervais, at 133, 756 N.Y.S.2d 390; see also People v. Celentano, 36 Misc.3d 1217[A], 2012 WL 3023509 [Dist. Ct., Nassau Co. 2012]; see also People v. Nerley, 194 Misc.2d 727, 756 N.Y.S.2d 721 [Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 2003]; People v. Griffin, 163 Misc.2d 43, 619 N.Y.S.2d 931 [Crim. Court, Kings Co. 1994] [criminal court maintains jurisdiction on certain matters between the time an indictment is voted and later filed]).
In People v. Lebron, 182 Misc.2d 640, 701 N.Y.S.2d 274 (Crim. Ct., Kings Co. 1999), the defendants were initially charged by felony complaint and held on bail. Prior to the expiration of the time period mandating release of the defendants pursuant to CPL § 180.80, the prosecutor filed a certificate of indictment. The defendant moved for a modification of his bail after the filing of the certificate of indictment but before filing of the indictment. The People, relying on People v. Brancoccio, 83 N.Y.2d 638, 612 N.Y.S.2d 353, 634 N.E.2d 954 (1994), countered that the criminal court lost jurisdiction by the filing of the certificate of indictment. The Lebron court reasoned that Brancoccio addressed only misdemeanor complaints and was inapplicable to a felony complaint. Thus, the Lebron court held that the prosecution’s filing of a certificate of indictment indicating that an indictment had been voted, but not yet filed, did not divest local criminal court of preliminary jurisdiction over the defendants, and thus did not bar the court from addressing the application for release.
[2] This Court agrees with the Lebron court in holding that the Brancoccio decision does not divest lower criminal court of preliminary jurisdiction on a felony complaint. The facts of Brancoccio were specific to the defendant’s ability to dispose of the charges against him by plea after a certificate of indictment was filed, and, therefore, addressed only trial jurisdiction. Brancoccio stands for the proposition that CPL § 170.20 notice divests lower criminal court of trial jurisdiction to dispose of a misdemeanor complaint while it is being presented to a grand jury and that regardless of the result of the grand jury, lower criminal court will not regain trial jurisdiction once the grand jury has voted. If the grand jury vote results in a dismissal, the case is dismissed. If a certificate of indictment is filed, the local criminal court remains without trial jurisdiction to accept a defendant’s plea pending the filing of the indictment in superior court. However, neither grand jury result would affect the preliminary jurisdiction of local criminal court. Since lower criminal court never has trial jurisdiction over a felony complaint, Brancoccio is inapplicable to such cases.
[3] To hold that Brancoccio divests lower criminal court of preliminary jurisdiction would mean that between the filing of a certificate of indictment on a felony complaint and the filing of an indictment, neither lower criminal court nor superior court would have any jurisdiction. Lower criminal court would not have preliminary or trial jurisdiction. Superior court does not have preliminary jurisdiction on cases initiated in lower criminal court and would not yet be vested with trial jurisdiction since a defendant cannot take a plea or otherwise dispose of the indicted charges on a certificate of indictment in superior court (CPL § 1.20[24]). The law limits the use of the certificate of indictment to maintaining the custody of a defendant past a maximum of 144 hours when a criminal action is commenced on a felony complaint (CPL § 180.80(2]). A certificate of indictment has no bearing on the preliminary jurisdiction of the local criminal court. The preliminary jurisdiction of lower criminal court must continue until the superior court is vested with trial jurisdiction.1
During a criminal action, the local criminal court has preliminary jurisdiction to consider bail or recognizance on a felony complaint once the prosecution has been heard, and the court is in receipt of the appropriate agency report or has deemed the report unnecessary (CPL § 530.20). In contrast, when an action is pending in local criminal court a superior court may only review bail when the local criminal court lacks jurisdiction, denies bail, or fixes excessive bail but may do so only one time (CPL § 530.30). When a criminal action is pending before the superior court bail may then be modified by the superior court (CPL § 530.40). A matter is pending before a superior court when an indictment or superior court information has been filed with the court and the superior court obtains trial jurisdiction (CPL §§ 1.20[24] & 210.05).
[4] The filing of a certificate of indictment serves only to allow the defendant to be held in custody (CPL § 180.80[2]). It neither divests a local criminal court of preliminary jurisdiction (CPL § 1.20[25]) nor vests a superior court with trial jurisdiction (CPL § 1.20[24]; CPL § 210.05). Through the exercise of its preliminary jurisdiction, the lower criminal court may still modify bail during the period between the filing of a certificate of indictment and the filing of an indictment in superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial