People v. Hooks
| Decision Date | 23 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-021845-22KN |
| Citation | 181 N.Y.S.3d 877 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Christopher HOOKS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
For the People: Steve Michelen, Esq., Kings County District Attorney's Office
For Defendant: Nicholas Raskin, Esq., The Legal Aid Society
The defendant, Christopher Hooks, is charged with Menacing in the Second Degree (PL § 120.14[1]), Menacing in the Third Degree (PL § 120.15), and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26[1]). He now challenges the validity of the People's certificate of compliance and moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL § 30.30.
For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is granted.
On April 14, 2022, at approximately 7:25 a.m., the defendant is alleged to have menaced the complainant with an object that appeared to be a firearm. While displaying the object, the defendant is alleged to have threated the complainant by stating that he would get them out of the building "one way or another." As a result, the complainant feared imminent physical injury and became alarmed and annoyed.
This criminal action commenced with the filing of an accusatory instrument at the arraignment held on July 31, 2022, and the defendant was released on his own recognizance. On October 27, 2022, the People served and filed a certificate of compliance and statement of readiness. The People later disclosed additional discovery materials on November 10, 2022, and November 15, 2022, but did not file a supplemental certificate of compliance on either date1 .
The defendant challenges the validity of the People's certificate of compliance. He argues that despite filing their certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1), the People failed to turn over certain required discoverable materials, including Giglio material, activity logs, body-worn camera video, and a statement allegedly made by the complainant to law enforcement. These failures, he argues, renders the certificate of compliance invalid. The defendant urges this Court to find that the People's failure to file a valid certificate of compliance invalidates their statement of readiness. In opposing the motion, the People contend that they are only required to provide the Giglio materials pertaining to testifying witnesses, that they exercised due diligence in obtaining and serving discovery, and that no prejudice has been shown by the defense for any belated disclosures.
CPL § 245.20(1) provides that the People shall disclose to the defendant and permit him to discover all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under their direction or control, including the items subject to automatic discovery listed in CPL § 245.20(1) (a — u). The People must "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable" and must "cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control" ( CPL § 245.20[2] ). When the defendant is not in custody, the People shall perform their initial discovery obligations within thirty-five days of arraignment on a misdemeanor complaint ( CPL § 245.10[1][a][ii] ). The certificate of compliance must include a statement that the People disclosed and made available all known information subject to discovery and must identify the items provided ( CPL § 245.50[1] ).
If the People provide additional discovery after filing their certificate of compliance ( CPL § 245.60 ), they must serve and file a supplemental certificate identifying the additional material and information provided ( CPL § 245.50[1] ). Additionally, "[a]ny supplemental certificate of compliance shall detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance" ( CPL § 245.50[1-a] ).
In a challenge to the validity of a certificate of compliance, the court must determine whether the People exercised the requisite level of diligence in obtaining the materials, whether their certification was filed in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances ( People v. Erby , 68 Misc. 3d 625, 128 N.Y.S.3d 418 [Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2020] ; People v. Knight , 69 Misc. 3d 546, 552, 130 N.Y.S.3d 919 [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2020] ; People v. McKinney , 71 Misc. 3d 1221[A], 2021 WL 2006850 [Crim. Ct. Kings County 2021] ; People v. Adrovic , 69 Misc. 3d 563, 130 N.Y.S.3d 614 [Crim. Ct. Kings County 2020] ).
In this case, the defendant was not in custody and the People had thirty-five days to turn over their initial discovery. It is undisputed that the People belatedly provided the body-worn camera video, activity log, and Giglio materials for Lieutenant Ayala, without filing a supplemental certificate of compliance. It is also undisputed that the People have not provided the following discoverable items: the names and work affiliation for all officers who responded to the locus in quo , body-worn camera videos for all responding officers, activity logs for all responding officers, axon datasheets for all officers with body-worn cameras, the complainant's statement made to the police for the walk-in report, and the names and relating discovery to the officers who were involved in taking the complainant's statement. The parties disagree over the completion of the required disclosure of Giglio materials for all responding and testifying officers.2
The People have not provided an adequate explanation for their delay or their failure to provide the outstanding discoverable items. The People made no effort to ascertain the existence of discoverable materials ( CPL § 245.20[2] ), until October 22, 2022, which is eighty-three days after the defendant was arraigned. The People offer no explanation for why they failed to perform their initial discovery obligations within thirty-five days after the defendant's arraignment ( CPL § 245.10[1][a][ii] ). The People do not explain their failure to provide a supplemental certificate of compliance on November 10, 2022, and November 15, 2022, or the basis for providing late discovery on those dates. The People have failed to comply with their statutory discovery obligations and have not met their burden of showing how their actions were diligent under the circumstances. Accordingly, the People's certificate of compliance was not filed in good faith and is deemed invalid ( People v. Soto , 72 Misc.3d 1153, 152 N.Y.S.3d 274, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 21204 [Crim. Ct. New York County 2021] ; People v. Ryklin , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50678[U], 2021 WL 3085880 [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2021] ; People v. McKinney , supra ; People v. Cooper , 71 Misc. 3d 559, 143 N.Y.S.3d 805 [County Ct .Erie County 2021] ; People v. Adrovic , supra ). Concomitantly, the People's statement of readiness is also deemed invalid ( CPL § 30.30[5] ).
The defendant moves to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to CPL § 30.30(1)(b) since the certificate of compliance and the statement of readiness have been invalidated and asserts that more than ninety days of pre-readiness time has elapsed since he was arraigned. In response, the People argue that dismissal is an extreme sanction for a discovery violation absent the defendant showing actual prejudice.
A defendant seeking dismissal pursuant to CPL § 30.30 meets his initial burden by alleging that the People have failed to declare readiness within the statutorily prescribed period ( People v. Beasley , 16 N.Y.3d 289, 292, 921 N.Y.S.2d 178, 946 N.E.2d 166 [2011] ). The statutory period to announce ready on an "A" misdemeanor is within ninety days from the date of arraignment ( CPL § 30.30[1][a] ). "[O]nce the defendant has shown the existence of a delay greater than [ninety days], the burden of proving that certain periods within that time should be excluded falls upon the People" ( People v. Berkowitz , 50 N.Y.2d 333, 349, 428 N.Y.S.2d 927, 406 N.E.2d 783 [1980] ).
The defendant was arraigned on July 31, 2022, on an "A" misdemeanor. At the arraignment, the defendant requested a hearing pursuant to Crawford v. Ally , 197 A.D.3d 27, 150 N.Y.S.3d 712 (1st Dept. 2021). The matter was adjourned to August 9, 2022, to conduct the hearing. While the People do not argue that this adjournment is excludable, this Court is not bound by incorrect legal arguments in its determination of speedy trial time ( People v. Cook, 30 Misc. 3d 134[A], 2011 WL...
To continue reading
Request your trial