People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 09 June 1986
• Court: New York City Court
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Louise BROWN, Defendant. . Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. (Michael G. Dwyer, Jr., of counsel), for the People of the State of N.Y. Martino & Weiss (Louis J. Martino, Mount Vernon, of counsel), for Louise Brown. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, Judge. This case presents a novel issue for which the Court finds no statutory or case authority. What is the appropriate time period for the People to declare readiness under the speedy trial provisions (CPL § 30.30) in the situation where a defendant, originally charged with a felony, eventually has the charge reduced twice, first to a misdemeanor and then to a violation? Defendant argues for dismissal because the People have not declared their readiness for trial within 90 days from the commencement of the proceedings. Initially the Court questions, sua sponte, whether the appropriate period pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is 30 days rather than 90 days as argued by counsel. A review of the court records reveals the following history: --

Page 874

508 N.Y.S.2d 874

133 Misc.2d 929

PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Louise BROWN, Defendant.

City Court of Mount Vernon.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. (Michael G. Dwyer, Jr., of counsel), for the People of the State of N.Y.

Martino & Weiss (Louis J. Martino, Mount Vernon, of counsel), for Louise Brown.

ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, Judge.

This case presents a novel issue for which the Court finds no statutory or case authority. What is the appropriate time period for the People to declare readiness under the speedy trial provisions (CPL § 30.30) in the situation where a defendant, originally charged with a felony, eventually has the charge reduced twice, first to a misdemeanor and then to a violation?

Defendant argues for dismissal because the People have not declared their readiness for trial within 90 days from the commencement of the proceedings. Initially the Court questions, sua sponte, whether the appropriate period pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is 30 days rather than 90 days as argued by counsel.

A review of the court records reveals the following history:

--June 9, 1986--Defendant was arraigned with counsel on the charge of Assault 2? . The matter was adjourned until June 18, 1986 for all purposes at defendant's request.

--June 18, 1986--Defendant requests a felony hearing which is scheduled for July 22, 1986, with consent of the District Attorney.

--July 22, 1986--At the call of the felony hearing the District Attorney reduced the charges from Assault in the 2? to the misdemeanor of Assault in the 3? . Defendant was arraigned on the superseding information, pled not guilty and the defendant demanded a jury trial. The matter was placed on the Jury Term Calendar and adjourned on consent of the parties to the Jury Pre-Trial conference date of August 28, 1986.

--August 28, 1986--After Pre-Trial conference in which no disposition was reached, the District Attorney filed an additional charge of resisting arrest. The defendant was arraigned and the case was scheduled for selection of a jury on September 3, 1986.

--September 3, 1986--Case was adjourned until September 12, 1986 by the Court for selection of a jury.

--September 12, 1986--The District Attorney, over the objection of the defendant, withdraws the assault and resisting arrest charges and files a superseding information charging the defendant with harassment. The defendant requested September 18, 1986 for motions.

--September 18, 1986--People declared readiness for trial. The defendant requested additional time for speedy trial motion. The matter was adjourned until 10/3/86.

-- October 3, 1986--People request an adjournment until 10/10/86 for their reply to defendant's motion.

--October 10, 1986--The matter marked fully submitted by the Court.

What is the appropriate time period pursuant to CPL § 30.30 for the People to declare readiness under this scenario? The statute itself does not address this double reduction situation. § 30.30(1) states that the People must be ready for trial within six months for a felony, 90 days for an A misdemeanor, 60 days for a B misdemeanor and 30 days for violations.

§ 30.30(5)(c) indicates that if a charge is reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, the period of declaration of readiness by the People is either 90 days from the filing of the new instrument, or, the balance of six months alloted to the original felony, whichever is shorter.

Section 30.30(5) does not address the superseding from an A misdemeanor to a B misdemeanor. In People v. Bernard, 129 Misc.2d 1083, 495 N.Y.S.2d 634, the Court decided not to apply the logic of § 30.30(5)(c) as applied to reductions from felonies to A misdemeanors, to the superseding from an A misdemeanor to a B misdemeanor. The Court held that the People had sixty days from the filing of the original accusatory instrument in which to be ready for trial.

CPL § 30.30 also is void as to a "double reduction" situation as appears in this case. This Court feels that following the logic expressed in People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 428 N.Y.S.2d 937, 406 N.E.2d 793, and People v. Bernard, supra, the People must declare readiness for trial within thirty days from the date of the original accusatory, after subtracting excludable time enumerated in § 30.30(4).

Accordingly, the Court determines that the People must have declared...