People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 23 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-016480-21NY |
| Citation | 74 Misc.3d 1224 (A),163 N.Y.S.3d 795 (Table) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Desha JACKSON, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
For the Defendant: Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, (Aaron Horth, of counsel)
For the People: Alvin L. Bragg Jr., District Attorney, (Kirstie Raffan, of counsel)
The People's attempt to replace the felony complaint in this action with a misdemeanor information on the day speedy trial time was set to expire cannot survive review. The felony complaint consequently still stands. As a result, defendant's speedy trial motion and motion to dismiss for lack of geographical jurisdiction are not properly before the court.
The court arraigned the defendant on July 20, 2021 after the People filed a complaint charging her with a single felony count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree ( Penal Law § 155.35[1] ), and the misdemeanor offenses of Welfare Fraud in the Fifth Degree ( Penal Law § 158.05 ) and Unlawful Use of a Credit Card, Debit Card or Public Benefit Card ( Penal Law § 165.17 ).
The complaint contains a complex series of allegations designed to show that the defendant made purchases in excess of three-thousand dollars with the unauthorized use of another person's public benefits card.
The prosecution served and filed a series of documents off-calendar purporting to transition from a felony complaint to a misdemeanor information.
The third in a series of four certificates of readiness (COR) submitted over the course of two days for the first time included the statement that the People "are hereby dismissing Count 1 of the accusatory instrument (Grand Larceny in the Third Degree in violation of Penal Law 155.35(1) ), thereby reducing the felony complaint to a misdemeanor complaint comprising one count of Welfare Fraud in the Fifth Degree ... and one count of Unlawful Use of Credit Card, Debit Card or Public Benefit Card...." A copy of an e-mail submitted with the People's papers indicate that this version of their certificate of readiness was sent to defense counsel on January 20, 2022 at 4:18 p.m.
A second e-mail at 4:35 p.m. indicates that the People were forwarding to defense counsel a "superseding information" (a misdemeanor complaint accompanied by a supporting deposition), certificate of compliance, discovery list and certificate of readiness.
The misdemeanor complaint is dated January 20, 2022 and signed by the deponent at 3:45 p.m. that afternoon. The single supporting deposition submitted is dated the same day and is signed by Jessie Leung an investigator with the New York City Human Resources Administration. The complaint contains the two misdemeanor charges from the original accusatory instrument along with the same factual allegations.
The People assert that these filings were sufficient to proceed on the misdemeanor information without court review or approval. They argue in the first instance that they were not seeking the reduction of the felony charge but had achieved its outright dismissal by the statement to that effect in the COR. Their dismissal of the felony count they claim renders unnecessary the court inquiry required by CPL 180.50 for a felony to misdemeanor reduction of a charge.
The court agrees that while the specific inquiry mandated by CPL 180.50(1) is not necessary under these circumstances, court review and approval of the dismissal of the felony count and decision to prosecute misdemeanors only is required.
The People may reduce a felony complaint to one charging misdemeanors only pursuant to CPL 180.50. This almost exclusively takes place during a court appearance on the People's application either for the purpose of having the defendant enter a guilty plea to a non-felony offense or "for all purposes" allowing the defendant to be prosecuted for misdemeanor charges only.
The statute delineates a specific procedure to be followed to effectuate the reduction which includes the court "upon consent of the district attorney, mak[ing] inquiry for the purpose of determining whether (a) the available facts and evidence relating to the conduct underlying the felony complaint provide a basis for charging the defendant with an offense other than a felony, and (b) if so, whether the charge should, in the manner prescribed in subdivision three, be reduced from one for a felony to one for a non-felony offense." CPL 180.50(1) ; see also People v. Bhagat , 63 Misc 3d 162(A) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2019) ().
After this inquiry the court is required to make a finding as to whether it "is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense other than a felony" at which point the court "may order the indicated reduction." CPL 180.50(2). Where reasonable cause is absent to believe the "defendant committed a felony in addition to the non-felony offense in question, the court may as a matter of right order a reduction of the charge to one for the non-felony offense ..." CPL 180.50(2)(a).
The felony complaint, however, in most circumstances contains allegations that provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony in addition to the non-felony offense.
In that instance the court will "order a reduction of the charge to one for the non-felony offense only if (i) it is satisfied that such reduction is in the interest of justice, and (ii) the district attorney consents ..." CPL 180.50(2)(b), with the court stating its finding on the record.
After or during this process the court is required to mark the court papers accordingly. Where a superseding information or complaint is served and filed, the court will cross out the felony complaint and usually add to it notations that a new accusatory instrument is filed. The court is then required to arraign the defendant on the new instrument. CPL 180.50(3)(d) ( ).
The court also can direct that an information be filed to replace the felony complaint. CPL 180.50 (3)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(ii).
In most cases, however, the court will accomplish the reduction or replacement by making notations on the felony complaint changing its title, indicating the reductions made to the count(s) affected, changing the penal law section and writing in the name(s) of the offense(s). CPL 180.50(3)(a)(iii) ().
The court also generally will date and initial the accusatory instrument on which the handwritten changes are made.
An analysis of these provisions along with the case law applying them demonstrates that court review and approval is necessary to effect the replacement of a felony complaint.
The People argue that the court inquiry, finding and approval for a reduction of a felony charge to a misdemeanor offense required by CPL 180.50 do not apply when the People act on their own and dismiss the felony count. Neither statute nor case law, however, support their position. See People v Thomas , 59 Misc 3d 64 (App Term, 1st Dept, 2018) (); People v Thomas , 107 Misc 2d 947 (Suffolk Dist Ct 1981) ("There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Law allowing the District Attorney on his own volition without any direction from the court to replace a felony complaint with a prosecutor's information"); cf. People v Tebeje , 161 Misc 2d 440 (Crim Ct Bronx County 1994) ( ).
The cases the prosecution relies on where the court's failure to make a CPL 180.50(1) inquiry did not prevent a reduction or replacement of the felony complaint are inapplicable. In those instances the dismissal of the felony count took place on the record and as part of a necessary first step to the defendant entering a guilty plea. In People v Johnson , 5 NY3d 752 (2005) the prosecution moved in open court to dismiss the only felony charge in the accusatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial