People v. Galindo
| Decision Date | 12 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2016-2355 Q CR |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlos GALINDO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
New York City Legal Aid Society (Jeffrey Dellheim of counsel), for appellant.
Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Josette Simmons McGhee of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, the order dated July 27, 2015 denying defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds is vacated, defendant's motion is granted, and the fines imposed, if paid, are remitted.
On January 4, 2014, defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor information charging him with aggravated driving while intoxicated ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2-a] ), driving while intoxicated (per se) ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2] ), driving while intoxicated (common law) ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3] ), parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202 [b] [1] ), consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages in certain motor vehicles ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227 [1] ) and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1] ). After a jury trial on all six charges, defendant was convicted of two misdemeanor charges, driving while intoxicated (per se) and driving while intoxicated (common law), and two traffic violations, consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages in certain motor vehicles and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. The jury acquitted him of the other charges. Defendant was sentenced on August 18, 2016.
On April 27, 2015, prior to the trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the entire misdemeanor information on statutory speedy trial grounds. Of particular importance for this appeal, in court on December 1, 2014, the People answered they were not ready for trial and filed a certificate of readiness (CoR) off-calendar on December 3, 2014. On the next court date, February 11, 2015, the People again answered not ready, without explanation for what caused this change since the filing of the CoR. Defendant argued in his motion that, pursuant to People v. Sibblies, 22 N.Y.3d 1174, 985 N.Y.S.2d 474, 8 N.E.3d 852 [2014], the CoR should be deemed illusory and the entire adjournment period should be charged to the People. The People did not file a response to defendant's motion, and thus did not proffer an explanation for their change of readiness.
The Criminal Court, in a decision and order dated July 27, 2015 that did not address defendant's Sibblies argument, charged the People with only the two days of this adjournment period that preceded the filing of the CoR, found a total of 30 days were chargeable to the People, and denied defendant's motion. The court's calculations, however, contained two errors. First, the court charged the People with 13 days for the adjournment they requested from February 11 to February 19, 2015; the People should have been charged with eight days. Second, the court erred in not charging the People with the entirety of the December 1, 2014 - February 11, 2015 adjournment period, totaling 72 days.
In People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45 [2016], which was not decided until after defendant had been convicted and sentenced, the Court of Appeals explained that the People "must establish a valid reason for their unreadiness in response to a defendant's CPL 30.30 motion," because it always has been the People's ultimate "obligation in the postreadiness context to ensure ‘that the record explains the cause of adjournments sufficiently for the court to determine which party should properly be charged with any delay’ " ( Brown , 28 N.Y.3d at 406, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45, quoting People v. Stirrup , 91 N.Y.2d 434, 440, 671 N.Y.S.2d 433, 694 N.E.2d 434 [1998] ). Because the People did not satisfy this requirement either on the record or by responding to defendant's motion, the Criminal Court should have deemed the CoR illusory and charged the entire adjournment period from December 1, 2014 to February 11, 2015 to the People. This 72-day time period, added to the other 23 days of chargeable time that the court correctly found, and which the People do not dispute, renders the People chargeable with a total of 95 days, more than the 90 days statutorily granted to them to be ready for trial in this case, where the most serious charge is a "misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months" ( CPL 30.30 [1] [b] ).
While the misdemeanor charges clearly must be dismissed, it had been the case, when defendant's dismissal motion was decided on July 27, 2015, that " CPL 30.30 does not apply to traffic infractions" ( People v. Dorilas , 19 Misc. 3d 75, 77, 860 N.Y.S.2d 797 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2008] ; see also People v. Corriette , 25 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52462(U), 2009 WL 4639698, *2 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2009] ; People v. Gonzalez , 168 Misc. 2d 136, 137, 645 N.Y.S.2d 978 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 1996] ). However, on January 1, 2020, an amended CPL 30.30 statute went into effect that abrogated the case law on this point, and explicitly brought traffic infractions within its ambit (see CPL 30.30 [2] [e] ). Under the amended statute, in a criminal case, such as this, where a defendant is charged with both a misdemeanor for which more than three months' incarceration is possible and a traffic infraction, the People are provided with a 90-day "clock" within which they must be ready for trial.
Thus, the question of first impression we now must answer is whether, for this direct appeal, we must follow the prior statute, in effect at the time of defendant's conviction, under which the traffic infractions could not be dismissed, or the current, amended CPL 30.30 statute, requiring dismissal of the traffic infractions along with the misdemeanors. As defendant's motion sought to dismiss the entire accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds, his contention with respect to the traffic infractions has been preserved.
In other contexts, a legislative change in the law will not apply retroactively on direct appeal (see e.g. People v. Carter , 173 A.D.2d 631, 631, 570 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1991] [] ). However, the case law more on point with the instant matter supports retroactive application of the amended CPL 30.30 statute on this direct appeal. We therefore hold that the amended statute must be followed.
Even though the amended CPL 30.30 statute does not say so explicitly, generally, where, as in this case, "a statute is amended during an appeal's pendency, ... ‘the law to be utilized is that in effect at the time the decision on appeal is rendered’ " ( Matter of Lambrou , 208 A.D.2d 1093, 1094-1095, 617 N.Y.S.2d 551 [1994], quoting Matter of Willard v. Haab , 170 A.D.2d 820, 822, 565 N.Y.S.2d 915 [1991], lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 854, 573 N.Y.S.2d 467, 577 N.E.2d 1059 [1991] ; Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial