People v. Burroughs

• Decision Date: 12 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 42357C2011.,42357C2011.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Jacqueline BURROUGHS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

950 N.Y.S.2d 724

The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Jacqueline BURROUGHS, Defendant.

No. 42357C2011.

New York Supreme Court.
Supreme Court, Bronx County.

April 12, 2012.

Decision and Order
RALPH A. FABRIZIO, J.

In this CPL § 30.30 decision, the issue is whether the People failed to state ready for trial in a legally correct manner when they served a superseding information and a certificate of readiness on The Legal Aid Society on November 28, 2011. Defendant concedes that The Legal Aid Society was assigned by the arraignment judge to be her attorney, and that this case was being prosecuted as a felony at that time. She also concedes that, in compliance with 22NYCRR 200.5, an attorney from The Legal Aid Society filed a written notice of their appearance as counsel on this case. Defendant also concedes that The Legal Aid Society never asked to be relieved of that representation, and that no judge ever relieved that organization from their assignment as her counsel. She further acknowledges that although two different attorneys from The Bronx Defenders appeared in court on two occasions, no one from The Bronx Defenders asked for court permission to be assigned to represent her on this case. The Bronx Defenders did not file a “notice of appearance” on this case until March 2, 2012, one month after filing this motion. Yet, defendant argues that the People should have served The Bronx Defenders with their certificate of readiness. The motion to dismiss is denied.

On July 30, 2011, defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint charging her, inter alia, with rape in the second degree (PL § 130.30(1). After the court assigned The Legal Aid Society to represent the defendant, an attorney from that organization filed a written notice of appearance with the clerk of the court, stating “you are hereby notified that I represent the defendant in the above-entitled action.” The People served notice that they would be presenting the case to the grand jury. According to the markings on the Court file, the attorney from The Legal Aid Society served written notice on the People that their client would appear before the grand jury. The case was adjourned until September 12, 2011 for Grand Jury action.

On the next date, when the case was called into the record in Part B, an attorney from the office of The Bronx Defenders apparently asked to have this case called. The defendant had a separate case then pending, which involved completely different charges and was already scheduled to be on the calendar in the Domestic Violence part on November 15, 2011. The Bronx Defenders had been assigned to represent the defendant on that matter, which was a misdemeanor. According to the minutes of the court appearance, the People announced that there had been no grand jury action. The judge in that part granted the People's application to dismiss the felony counts, and the accusatory instrument in this matter was now a misdemeanor compliant. The attorney from The Bronx Defenders asked the court only to adjourn this case to join the “DV matter” on November 15, 2011. The attorney never asked the court to assign The Bronx Defenders to represent the defendant on this entirely separate matter. There is no record that an attorney from The Legal Aid Society ever appeared at all that day, or were ever relieved of their court-appointed representation.

.On November 15, 2011, a different attorney from The Bronx Defenders appeared in court. This case, as well as the other pending matter, were called into the record at the same time. The attorney engaged in an off the record plea discussion with a different judge about the earlier case. The People asked for this case to be adjourned to file a superseding information. Once again, there was no request made to have The Bronx Defenders assigned to be defendant's counsel of record in this case, and The Legal Aid Society did not appear. Both cases were adjourned until December 15, 2011.

On November 28, 2011, the People filed a superseding information with the Court, charging the defendant with, inter alia, sexual misconduct (PL § 130.20(2)), stalking (PL § 120.45(1)) and assault in the third degree (PL § 120.00(1)). They also filed a certificate of readiness. Both the superseding information and the certificate of readiness were served on the attorney from The Legal Aid Society. On February 8, 2012, defense counsel from The Bronx Defenders filed a written motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the People had failed to state ready within the ninety day period required by statute. The People responded to that motion on February 27, 2012, arguing that they had properly answered ready when they notified the court as well as the only attorney who had filed a notice of appearance in this case of their readiness. On March 2, 2012, an attorney from The Bronx Defenders filed, for the first time, a written notice of appearance on behalf of the defendant in this matter. And, on March 26, 2012, the attorney filed an affirmation in reply to the People's response. This Court has been assigned to write the decision, and was never present at any of the calendar calls involved. However, the Court does have the minutes of the September 12, and November 15, 2011 calendar calls.

In terms of chargeable time, the Court makes the following findings. Defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint, and the felony charges were dismissed on September 12, 2011. On that date, the People did not answer ready for trial, and the case was adjourned for the People to file a superseding information. As the top count was an A misdemeanor, the People had ninety days to answer ready for trial after...