People v. Johnson

• Citation: 74 Misc.3d 1235 (A),165 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Table)
• Decision Date: 26 April 2022
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-015890-21BX
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Tyrell JOHNSON, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

74 Misc.3d 1235 (A)
165 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Tyrell JOHNSON, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-015890-21BX

Criminal Court, City of New York, Bronx County.

Decided on April 26, 2022

For the People: ADA Michael Dal Lago, Office of Darcel D. Clark, Bronx County District Attorney

For Defendant: Sabrina Lee, Esq., The Bronx Defenders

Michael J. Hartofilis, J.

Defendant is charged with Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree and the violation of Disorderly Conduct as a result of an incident which allegedly occurred on or about September 10, 2021.

By notice of omnibus motion Defendant moves this Court for orders (i) dismissing all charges in the information on speedy trial grounds under CPL §§ 30.30 [1][b] and 170.30 [1][e] ; (ii) precluding the People from introducing at trial any evidence for which they failed to give timely notice; (iii) suppressing evidence of all properly noticed out-of-court identifications of Defendant, or alternatively, holding a Wade hearing; (iv) precluding evidence of any prior bad acts or convictions of Defendant, or alternatively, holding a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing; and (iv) reserving the right to make additional motions under CPL § 255.20. The People have opposed all branches of Defendant's motion.

Speedy Trial Motion

Defendant asserts that the People failed to convert the accusatory instrument to a valid information within the required 90 days pursuant to CPL § 30.30 [1][e]. Defendant was arraigned on October 31, 2021. The speedy trial period began to run on November 1, 2021. ( People v Stiles , 70 NY2d 765 [1985] ). The People were required to be ready on January 29, 2022. The prosecutor filed a superseding accusatory instrument on January 27, 2022, the 88th day after arraignment.

The substance of Defendant's argument is that the superseding accusatory instrument is facially insufficient and its filing failed to toll the speedy trial clock because the named deponent is a male named Detective Domingo Cabreja, but the complaint is signed by the complainant, Leonora Jackson. Additionally, the factual portion of the document is written in the third person female, as follows, in relevant part:

Deponent states that ... she and defendant engaged in a verbal dispute ... she observed ... defendant approach a green Jeep Grand Cherokee and use a sharp metal object ... causing said tires to deflate and go flat. Deponent further states that she is the lawful custodian of said Jeep and did not give defendant permission or authority to damage said Jeep.

Immediately below the factual portion of the accusatory instrument is the following form notice: "False statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to PL § 210.45." Below this notice is a line containing a signature of the complainant, Leonora Jackson, and the date January 27, 2022. Nowhere in the factual portion of the accusatory is the deponent referred to as "he;" nowhere does Detective Domingo Cabrera's signature appear on the document. The question here is whether the apparent inadvertent error of naming Detective Domingo...