People v. Matos
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-019759-22BX |
| Decision Date | 07 June 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 50553 (U) |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, v. Jhonathan Melo Matos, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
Unpublished Opinion
For the People: Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County (by: ADA Jennifer Rentrope)
For the Defendant: The Bronx Defenders (by: William John, Esq.)
By notice of omnibus motion dated March 30, 2023, defendant moves for an order dismissing misdemeanor charges on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 30.30 and 170.30. Specifically, defendant contests the validity of the People's certificate of compliance ("COC") due to the prosecution's failure to comply with disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) within their prescribed speedy trial time. If the court denies his request to dismiss the information, defendant seeks an order granting sanctions pursuant to CPL § 245.80 for the People's failure to disclose evidence; suppressing evidence related to his purported unlawful arrest pursuant to CPL § 710.20, or in the alternative, a Mapp [1] hearing; suppressing properly noticed statements taken from defendant during a purported custodial interrogation pursuant to CPL §§ 60.45 (2) (b) (ii) and 710.20 (3), or in the alternative, a Huntley/Miranda [2] hearing.
Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
On October 24, 2022, defendant Jhonathan Melo Matos was arrested and issued a desk appearance ticket pursuant to CPL § 150.10. On November 13, 2022, defendant was arraigned and charged with Penal Law ("P.L.") § 170.20 (criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree), [3] Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") § 511 (1) (a) (), and VTL § 509 (1) (unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle).
The People filed their COC and statement of readiness ("SOR") off-calendar on February 10, 2023, which represented, in relevant part, that the prosecution had produced an "Underlying Giglio Document" concerning Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB") allegation history for testifying witness and arresting officer, Hilarioseverino ("P.O. Hilarioseverino"). [4] By letter dated February 10, 2023, the prosecution further advised defense counsel that P.O. Hilarioseverino had been the subject of an unsubstantiated CCRB investigation, and had also been named in a civilian lawsuit in her professional capacity.
At a conference held on February 17, 2023, before Hon. Matthew Bondy, the parties were directed to submit a joint discovery letter concerning any disputed items. In the parties' discovery letter, dated March 13, 2023, defense counsel enumerated three items in dispute: 1) underlying documentation concerning the civilian lawsuit against P.O Hilarioseverino, 2) the People's incomplete witness list and 3) records from the state of New Jersey's Department of Motor Vehicles ("NJ DMV"). [5] The prosecution's response was that the People had shared everything in their possession concerning the lawsuit against P.O. Hilarioseverino but would endeavor to supplement if additional information became available. The People further advised defendant that they intended to call a witness from the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles ("NYS DMV") whose identity had not yet been determined, but they would not call any witness from the N.J. DMV. At the March 15, 2023 court appearance, defense counsel asserted that the People's COC was illusory, the prosecution reiterated their intention to call a witness from NYS DMV, and the instant motion schedule was set. On March 30, 2023, defendant filed his motion. On May 19, 2023, the People filed their opposition.
Where defendant alleges that the accusatory instrument should be dismissed because the People's COC is illusory based upon the prosecution's failure to discharge their automatic disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20, the People must establish that they have met their discovery burden (see e.g., People v Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 572 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020] ["The People must certify that they have complied with their discovery requirements before they may be deemed ready for trial"] citing CPL § 245.50 [3]).
Courts will then conduct an inquiry to determine whether the People are in compliance by examining the prosecution's efforts to obtain outstanding discovery materials (see People v Askin, 68 Misc.3d 372, 380 [Nassau County Ct 2020] ; People v Quinlan, 71 Misc.3d 266, 271 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2021]; People v Pierna, 74 Misc.3d 1072, 1088 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]). Inherent in this inquiry is an examination of the People's exercise of good faith and due diligence and the reasonableness of their actions based upon the particular circumstances of the case. (see Id.).
Where the prosecution's efforts evince due diligence and good faith were made manifest although some items remain unavailable, a court can deem the COC to be valid and the People ready for trial (see People v Diaz, 77 Misc.3d 727, 733 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]). Additionally, pursuant to CPL § 245.80, a court may impose a remedy or sanction where discoverable information is disclosed belatedly, if warranted, which is appropriate and proportionate to the prejudice suffered by the party entitled to the discovery (CPL § 245.80 [1] [emphasis added]). However, where the People fail to detail their efforts to obtain discoverable items such that a court is unable to find a demonstration of either good faith or due diligence, their COC will be found invalid (see People v Perez, 75 Misc.3d 1205 [A], *3, 2022 NY Slip Op. 50387 [U] [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022] ["Rather, when the People submit documentation to the court certifying their compliance with their statutory obligation, they must do more than merely mouth the words" citing Adrovic, supra at 574-75][internal citations omitted]).
Defendant's motion to dismiss is premised upon the prosecution's failure to provide within 90 days of his arraignment: 1) underlying information concerning a civilian lawsuit against P.O. Hilarioseverino, 2) the name of the specific witness from the NYS DMV they intend to call at trial, and 3) the name of the witness/representative from the N.J. DMV, without which he asserts that he cannot effectively defend himself at trial. (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 8, 12, 14).
Specifically, defendant maintains that any information concerning a civilian lawsuit against P.O. Hilarioseverino is presumptively discoverable pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) (iv) as impeachment material. Defendant argues that the summary provided to him which states the name of the litigants, index number, county, and date of incident, is insufficient to fulfill the People's statutory obligation and he avers that the prosecution is in constructive possession of the underlying case material because the New York City Law Department may have represented the police officer. (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 10).
Additionally, defendant argues that although the People have provided discovery from the DMV, they cannot sustain their burden of proof under VTL § 511 unless the prosecution produces a live witness at trial. (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 13). Defendant asserts that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires the People to produce a witness whom the defendant can cross-examine concerning their personal knowledge of the mailing procedures which were in effect when he was allegedly sent a suspension notice from the NYS DMV.
Moreover, insofar as defendant has been charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument (a N.J. license plate), he asserts that the prosecution's witness list is incurably defective because the People have not proffered the name of a representative from the N.J. DMV who would have personal knowledge of how New Jersey license plates are created. (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 14).
Defendant also argues that if the court does not dismiss the information, he is entitled to the suppression of evidence and statements unlawfully obtained pursuant to CPL § § § 60.45 (2) (b) (ii), 710.20 and 710.20 (3), or pre-trial hearings to determine findings of fact or conclusions of law.
As an initial matter, the People state that their Giglio disclosure letter referencing a civilian lawsuit against P.O. Hilarioseverino was sent in error. [6] (affirmation in support of the People's opposition at 5).
The People blithely assert that they and the defendant were both unaware that the tax identification number attached to the civil lawsuit, as stated in their disclosure letter dated February 10, 2023, was different from the one assigned to P.O. Hilarioseverino, indicating that a different officer was actually involved in the lawsuit. (affirmation in support of the People's opposition at 6).
The People's opposition elides an explanation of why their contribution to the parties' May 13, 2023 joint discovery letter did not clarify the issue. However, they now state unreservedly, that there is no lawsuit information concerning P.O. Hilarioseverino. (affirmation in support of the People's opposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial