People v. Licius

• Decision Date: 22 December 2023
• Citation: 204 N.Y.S.3d 707
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Richecarde LICIUS, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

204 N.Y.S.3d 707

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,

v.Richecarde LICIUS, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 2, 11, 13 Jud. Dist.

Decided on December 22, 2023

Appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County(Carolina Holderness, J.), dated September 30, 2022.The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy grounds.

Kings County District Attorney(Leonard Joblove and Julian Joins of counsel), for appellant.

New York City Legal Aid Society(Simon Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds is denied, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for all further proceedings.

[1] Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, in May 2022, defendant was arraigned on an accusatory instrument charging him with various offenses, the highest charge being a class A misdemeanor.On August 1, 2022, at 5:03 p.m., the People submitted a certificate of compliance, a statement of readiness (SoR) and other documents to the Criminal Court through the Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS).On the same day, the People also served these documents on defense counsel.On August 2, 2022, the People received an EDDS Notification of Filing by which they were informed that the court had marked their documents as "FILED" on August 1st (seeUniform Rules for Trial Cts[22 NYCRR] § 202.5-c [c][3][setting forth the requirements for a document to be deemed "filed" through EDDS]).Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that his statutory right to a speedy trial had been violated in that 91 days of delay were chargeable to the People because their SoR was submitted after business hours on August 1.The People opposed the motion, to which defendant replied.All parties concede that, as of August 1st, 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People.By order dated September 30, 2022, the Criminal Court granted defendant’s motion, finding that the People were chargeable with 91 days of delay, even though their SoR was filed on August 1, 2022, because "[w]hen announcing readiness by filing af- ter court has closed for the day, the People effectively declare readiness for the following day, as that is the earliest time a trial could be conducted."The instant appeal by the People ensued.

[2, 3] As the highest charge against defendant was a class A misdemeanor, the People had 90 days within which to announce their readiness for trial (seeCPL 30.30 [1][b]).It is well settled that being "ready for trial" comprises two elements (seePeople v. Chavis,91 N.Y.2d 500, 505, 673 N.Y.S.2d 29, 695 N.E.2d 1110[1998];People v. Kendzia,64 N.Y.2d 331, 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287[1985]).First, the People must communicate their readiness on the record by "fil[ing] a certificate of readiness or mak[ing] a statement of readiness in open court"(People v. Smith,82 N.Y.2d 676, 678, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466, 619 N.E.2d 403[1993];seePeople v. Brown,28 N.Y.3d 392, 403, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45[2016];Chavis,91 N.Y.2d at 505, 673 N.Y.S.2d 29, 695 N.E.2d 1110;Kendzia,64 N.Y.2d at 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287).Second, CPL 30.30"contemplates an indication of present readiness, not a prediction or expectation of future readiness"(Kendzia,64 N.Y.2d at 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287;seeBrown,28 N.Y.3d at 403, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45;People v. Wilson,86 N.Y.2d 753, 754, 631 N.Y.S.2d 127, 655 N.E.2d 168[1995]).Here, the Criminal Court held that, as the People had filed their SoR after business hours, a trial could not have been commenced at the time of the filing and, therefore, the People could not have been ready for trial on that day.However, the People’s readiness for trial and the court’s ability to commence a trial are separate issues.CPL 30.30 only requires that the People be ready for trial within a specified time period, here 90 days; the statute does not require that a trial be held within this time period.The court’s inability to commence a trial does not excuse the People from timely declaring their readiness for trial (see e.g.People v. Barden,27 N.Y.3d 550, 553, 36 N.Y.S.3d 80, 55 N.E.3d 1053[2016];Chavis,91 N.Y.2d at 505, 673 N.Y.S.2d 29, 695 N.E.2d 1110;Smith,82 N.Y.2d at 678, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466, 619 N.E.2d 403).

[4]CPL 30.30 does not provide that the People must announce their readiness for trial during the court’s business hours, e.g., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Rather, CPL 30.30(1)(b) states that the People must be ready for trial within 90 "days."Pursuant to General Construction Law § 19, a "calendar day includes the time from midnight to midnight," and the General Construction Law should be read into every statute subsequently enacted, unless the wording of a later statute plainly expresses a contrary intent (see97 NY Jur 2d, Statutes§ 100;People v. Powell,179 Misc.2d 1047, 1048, 690 N.Y.S.2d 826[App. Term, 2d Dept., 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 1999]).As CPL 30.30 does not express a contrary intent (seePowell,179 Misc.2d at 1048, 690 N.Y.S.2d 826), the speedy trial...