People v. Cada

• Decision Date: 01 October 2020
• Docket Number: CR-033483-19QN
• Citation: 133 N.Y.S.3d 425,69 Misc.3d 882
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Jimmy CADA, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

69 Misc.3d 882
133 N.Y.S.3d 425

The PEOPLE of the State of New York,
v.
Jimmy CADA, Defendant.

CR-033483-19QN

Criminal Court, City of New York.

Decided on October 1, 2020

133 N.Y.S.3d 427

Jesse Kropf, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, for defendant.

Amanda Dolan, Assistant District Attorney Office of the Queens District Attorney, for plaintiff.

David J. Kirschner, J.

69 Misc.3d 883

Defendant is charged by an accusatory instrument with criminal mischief in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 145.00 [1] ), possession of an imitation pistol (Administrative Code § 10-131 [G] ), harassment in the second degree ( Penal Law § 240.26 [1] ), and related charges. By motion filed on August 24, 2020 defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (b), claiming that his statutory speedy trial rights were violated. The People filed a response on September 2, 2020 and oppose defendant's motion. After a review of the motion papers filed by defendant and the People, as well as the court file and other documents on file with the court, defendant's motion is denied in its entirety .

I. Background and Procedural Posture

On or about October 29, defendant allegedly approached the vehicle of his ex-girlfriend, Genobeva Rojas, and stated in sum and substance, "come with me or I will kill you." The complainant further alleges she observed him break her vehicle's windshield wiper.

On November 1, 2019 at approximately 9:48 PM, Police Officer Johnmich Schramm (PO Schramm), of the 110 Precinct, allegedly observed defendant operating a 2013 Jeep Cherokee with a defective rear left light and placed him under arrest.

On November 2, 2019 PO Schramm recovered, pursuant to a search of defendant's home, a black imitation pistol from a shelf inside his bedroom.

At defendant's November 2, 2019 arraignment, the People, lacking a supporting deposition from the complainant, were unable to declare their readiness for trial. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance. The case was then adjourned until December 17, 2019 for the purpose of such filing.

69 Misc.3d 884

Then, on November 29, the People filed and served a supporting deposition from the complainant along with a written statement of their readiness to proceed with trial.

On December 17, the case was adjourned until February 11 for the purpose of discovery

133 N.Y.S.3d 428

in accordance with the new CPL 30.30 provision, which became effective on January 1, 2020, requiring the People to file a discovery compliance certificate as a condition of their trial readiness obligation.

On February 11, 2020, however, the People had yet to file a certificate of discovery compliance. The case was then adjourned until April 7 for such compliance.

Since then, this case has been administratively adjourned because of the COVID-19 pandemic health crisis, which necessitated a scaled back—though still entirely functional—operation of the New York City Criminal Court (see generally People ex rel. Nevins v. Brann , 67 Misc. 3d 638, 122 N.Y.S.3d 874 [Sup. Ct. Queens County 2020] ). And, since March 20, 2020, CPL 30.30 has, and continues to be, suspended through a series of executive orders issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo (see Executive Order 202.8).

II. Discussion

Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30 was enacted to serve the narrow purpose of ensuring prompt prosecutorial readiness for trial ( People v. Brown , 28 N.Y.3d 392, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45 [2016] ; People v. Price , 14 N.Y.3d 61, 896 N.Y.S.2d 719, 923 N.E.2d 1107 [2010] ; People v. Sinistaj , 67 N.Y.2d 236, 501 N.Y.S.2d 793, 492 N.E.2d 1209 [1986] ). Being ready for trial requires two elements ( People v. Chavis, 91 N.Y.2d 500, 505, 673 N.Y.S.2d 29, 695 N.E.2d 1110 ). First, the People must state their readiness on the record in open court, or in a written notice served on defense counsel and filed with the court ( id. ). Second, the People must in fact be ready to proceed at the time they declare readiness ( id. ). Mere statements of predictions or expectations of future readiness are insufficient ( People v. Kendzia , 64 N.Y.2d 331, 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287 ).

To determine whether the People have satisfied their obligation of trial readiness, the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument is calculated along with the People's declaration of readiness, less any periods of delay excludable under

...