People v. Hernandez

• Decision Date: 22 April 2022
• Docket Number: CR-021010-21QN
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 22129
• Parties: The People of the State of New York v. Chris Hernandez, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

2022 NY Slip Op 22129

The People of the State of New York
v.
Chris Hernandez, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-021010-21QN

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County

April 22, 2022

Queens Defenders (Kim Barr of counsel), for defendant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Queens (Audra Beerman of counsel and Carly Gresham, Criminal Law Associate), for plaintiff.

Danielle Hartman Judge

Under New York's reform laws that were enacted in 2020, a statement of readiness on an accusatory instrument is not valid unless the People certify that all counts charged in the information meet the requirements of Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 100.15 and 100.40 and that any counts not meeting those requirements have been dismissed. In this case, the novel question before the Court is whether a duplicitous count invalidates the People's CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification resulting in time being charged to the prosecution under the speedy trial statute. This court finds that it does. Inasmuch as a duplicitous count fails to comply with CPL 100.15, an accusatory instrument that contains such a count prevents the People from filing a valid statement of readiness and therefore speedy trial time is charged to them. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is granted.

Defendant is charged with criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law [PL] § 215.50 [3]) and aggravated harassment in the second degree (PL § 240.30 [1]). The complaint alleges, in sum and substance, that between September 21, 2021, at 9:10 a.m. and October 6, 2021, at 2:40 p.m., inside of 38-70 12th Street in Queens County, the complainant received multiple text messages from defendant, who was her husband. In the text messages, defendant demanded that the complainant pay him weekly to stay married to him and threatened to report her to immigration and post her nude photographs online if she failed to pay him. The complaint further alleges that defendant commented on the complainant's Facebook post. It also alleges that he sent her multiple messages on the "messenger" application. Next, the complaint alleges that the deponent police officer had reviewed an order of protection that the Honorable Judge Titus of the Kings Family Court issued on September 16, 2021, on behalf of the complainant, that was in effect until November 22, 2021. The order provided, among other things, that defendant was to stay away from the complainant and not have any communication or contact with her. The complaint further alleges that a statement of personal service indicated that defendant was personally served with the order of protection on September 16, 2021.

Defendant was arraigned on October 9, 2021.

On December 3, 2021, the People filed and served a certificate of compliance, a supporting deposition signed by the complainant, and a statement of readiness. On December 10, 2021, the People filed and served a certificate pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5-a), in which they certified that all counts contained in the accusatory instrument complied with CPL 100.15 and 100.40, and that any counts not meeting those requirements had been dismissed.

Defendant claims that the count of criminal contempt in the second degree is duplicitous because it pertains to more than one distinct act, in violation of CPL 200.30 (1) and 200.50 (3). ^[1]

The People contend, however, that the counts are not duplicitous because the law prohibiting duplicitous counts applies only to indictments, not misdemeanor complaints. The People assert that, unlike an indictment, they can amend the misdemeanor complaint before the case goes to trial, thereby eliminating any duplicity in the counts.

Analysis

On January 1, 2020, the new discovery article 245 of the criminal procedure law took effect, with its concomitant imposition of a statutory definition for the People's readiness for trial pursuant to CPL 30.30. Newly promulgated CPL 30.30 (5) defines an effective statement by the People that they are "ready for trial" to mean that they can establish their actual readiness to proceed to trial upon mandated inquiry by the court. Additionally, "[a]ny statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of [CPL] 245.20" (CPL 30.30 [5]; CPL 245.50 [3]) and the prosecutor must certify that all counts charged comply with CPL 100.15 and 100.40 or have been dismissed (CPL 30.30 [5-a]). Clearly, these provisions must be read together to determine the legislative intent and harmonized "in a way that renders them internally compatible" (People v Golo, 26 N.Y.3d 358, 361 [2015], quoting, Matter of Aaron J., 80 N.Y.2d 402, 407 [1992]; Statutes Law § 97).

The amendments to CPL 30.30 which define when the People may be deemed ready for trial were enacted to address three issues: advance disclosure to defendants, readiness on partially converted accusatory instruments, and the court's obligation to ensure that the People are actually ready for trial on each occasion that they make the...