People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 10 March 2022
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-009951-21BX
• Citation: 75 Misc.3d 203,163 N.Y.S.3d 913
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Derrick Swann JACKSON, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

75 Misc.3d 203
163 N.Y.S.3d 913

The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Derrick Swann JACKSON, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-009951-21BX

Criminal Court, City of New York, Bronx County.

Decided on March 10, 2022

The prosecution—Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County, by Daniel Farrell, Assistant District Attorney

Defendant—The Legal Aid Society by Katherine Burton, Esq.

Shari R. Michels, J.

163 N.Y.S.3d 914

75 Misc.3d 204

By superseding information filed on August 10, 2021, Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, in violation of PL § 145.00(1). By notice of motion filed on January 3, 2022, Defendant seeks an order dismissing the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient. Alternatively, Defendant moves for a Huntley/Dunaway hearing and other relief. The prosecution filed an affirmation in opposition on January 28, 2022.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court file as well as the applicable law, the Court grants Defendant's motion, and dismisses the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency.

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FACIAL INSUFFICIENCY

A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution ( People v. Case , 42 N.Y.2d 98, 99, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 365 N.E.2d 872 [1977] ). A legally sufficient misdemeanor information must substantially conform to the requirements prescribed in CPL § 100.15 ( CPL § 100.40[1][a] ). Additionally, the factual part of a misdemeanor information "must allege facts of an evidentiary character demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged" ( People v. Dumas , 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 [1986] ; CPL § 100.40[1][b] ). The information must also set forth "non-hearsay, factual allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" ( CPL § 100.40[1][c] ); People v. Inserra , 4 N.Y.3d 30, 790 N.Y.S.2d 72, 823 N.E.2d 437 [2004] ).

A court reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency must assume that the factual allegations are true and must consider all reasonable inferences that may be drawn

75 Misc.3d 205

from them ( People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738, 747, 944 N.Y.S.2d 715, 967 N.E.2d 1160 [2012] ; People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 [2000] ). However, "[f]acial sufficiency, by definition, limits the Court's analysis to the four corners of the accusatory instrument" ( People v. Williams , 21 Misc. 3d 678, 684, 864 N.Y.S.2d 295 [City Ct. Albany City 2008] citing People v. Thomas , 4 N.Y.3d 143, 146, 791 N.Y.S.2d 68, 824 N.E.2d 499 [2005] ). The Court of Appeals has instructed that where "it cannot be determined upon the face of the information whether the pleading is in compliance with CPL 100.40(1)(c), the information is subject to a motion to dismiss" ( Casey, supra, 361, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 ).

Under this legal framework, the Court finds that both counts of the accusatory instrument are facially insufficient and must be dismissed.

The accusatory instrument provides, in pertinent part, that:

PO VICTOR GONZALEZHERNAND [ ] states that on [ ] June 30, 2021 at approximately 3:00 AM [and on or about July 1, 2021 at approximately 4:15 AM] inside of 1560 Boone Avenue, County of the Bronx, State of New York, [ ] the Defendant committed [on each date] the offense of Criminal Mischief [in the fourth degree].

Occurrence One

Deponent is informed by Michael Healey, that at the above time and place, informant observed defendant via video surveillance to strike the facial recognition device with a closed fist

...