People v. Otero

• Decision Date: 09 November 2020
• Docket Number: CR 01274-19
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Angel OTERO, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

70 Misc.3d 526
135 N.Y.S.3d 621

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Angel OTERO, Defendant.

CR 01274-19

City Court, New York, City of Albany.

Decided on November 9, 2020

135 N.Y.S.3d 622

HON. P. DAVID SOARES. Albany County District Attorney, (Cheryl Fowler, Esq., of Counsel), Attorney for the People.

HON. STEPHEN HERRICK, Albany County Public Defender, (Jessica Gorman, Esq, of Counsel), Attorney for the Defendant.

Eric M. Galarneau, J.

70 Misc.3d 527

This case requires the Court to determine whether the Legislature, in enacting the 2019 criminal discovery reforms, inadvertently created a loophole in the state's speedy trial statute ( CPL § 30.30 ).

Generally speaking, CPL § 30.30 motions have always focused on two issues: first, did the People announce ready for trial within the time period fixed by statute; and second, if not, is there any "excludable time" that would excuse the People's dereliction in doing so? By design, the 2019 reforms fundamentally altered the scope of these inquires by requiring that the People withhold their announcement of readiness until they have completed their discovery obligations under the newly enacted Article 245. Less certain, as Judge Donnino noted in his commentaries, is whether the 2019 reforms also affected the People's ability to use excludable time under the speedy trial statute (see

135 N.Y.S.3d 623

CPL § 30.30[4] ; see also William C. Donnino, Supplemental Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL § 30.30 [note: online version] )). In this case, the defendant's motion places that issue squarely before the Court. Specifically, the Court is asked to determine whether the 2019 reforms eroded the People's ability to invoke the exclusions under the speedy trial statute, or if the legislature unwittingly created a loophole for prosecutors so that they can use excludable time even if they do not comply with discovery.

The facts themselves are relatively straightforward. On July 9, 2019, the defendant was arraigned on a one count misdemeanor information charging him with Endangering the Welfare of a Child, a Class A misdemeanor. At arraignment, the People announced ready for trial but requested an adjournment to July 23, 2019 to review the case for a possible disposition. No plea bargain was reached by July 23, 2019, so the Court established a motion and discovery schedule, with a Court decision expected by September 24, 2019. Thereafter, there were several court appearances to address pre-trial matters, as well as renewed proposals for the defendant to engage in a diversion program, known as UCANN. These negotiations ultimately fell through, and, on November 19, 2019, the Court set a trial date for February 19, 2020.

70 Misc.3d 528

On January 1, 2020, the new discovery laws took effect. Under the new law, the People could not announce ready for trial until they filed a certificate of compliance with discovery (see CPL §§ 30.30[5] and 245.50 ). That did not happen until June 26, 2020. In the interim, the defendant continued to make court appearances, with the next one of note occurring on February 11, 2020. At that appearance, the People conveyed a new offer. The defendant requested a one-week adjournment to consider the offer, to February 18, 2020, at which time he declined it, and the matter was rescheduled for trial for April 2020. However, on March 20, 2020, Court operations were suspended due to COVID-19, and did not realistically resume until July 2020. As a result, the April trial was postponed.

Based on these facts, the defendant moved for dismissal on statutory speedy trial grounds. Of note, the defendant claimed that, after the effective date for the criminal discovery reforms, the People could not rely on excludable time unless they had satisfied their discovery obligations. To resolve the factual issues raised by the defendant's motion, a hearing was held on October 6, 2020, the facts adduced at which are set forth above. The following constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

On a speedy trial motion, the defendant bears the initial burden of alleging that the People were not ready for trial within the statutorily prescribed time frame; the People, for their part, must show their eligibility for any statutory exclusions—or, in the nomenclature of the state speedy trial law, "excludable" time. ( People v. Luperon , 85 N.Y.2d 71, 81, 623 N.Y.S.2d 735, 647 N.E.2d 1243 [1995] ).

Here, the People announced ready for trial on July 9, 2019. Under the law as it existed before the 2019 reforms, that was enough for speedy trial purposes (see People v. Kendzia , 64 N.Y.2d 331, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287 [1985] ). Thus, the period from July 9, 2019 through December 31, 2019 cannot be charged to the People unless the delay constituted "post readiness delay" that "is attributable to [the People's] inaction and directly implicates their ability to proceed to trial" (see People v. Carter , 91 N.Y.2d 795, 799, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523, 699 N.E.2d 35 [1998] ). There was only one such period prior to

135 N.Y.S.3d 624

the discovery reforms—the initial adjournment of 14 days, from July 9, 2019 until July 24, 2019, which was requested by the People (see People v. Friday , 160 A.D.3d 1052, 74 N.Y.S.3d 391 [3d Dep't 2018] ). The remaining delays—for motion practice and other court appearances—cannot be charged to the People because the delays did not directly affect their ability to proceed to trial (see Carter, id. ; People v. Anderson , 66 N.Y.2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231 [1985] (post-readiness delay in

70 Misc.3d 529

responding to defendant's discovery requests not chargeable to People)).

The analysis changes with the onset of the discovery reforms. As noted above, the People were required, as of January 1, 2020, to file a certificate of compliance with Article 245 as a precursor to trial readiness, which did not happen until June 26, 2020 ( CPL § 245.50[3] ). Because the 2019 reforms apply retroactively (see People v. DeMilio , 66 Misc. 2d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 [Duchess Co. Ct. 2020] ), the new law also had the effect of nullifying the People's previous statement of readiness (see People v. Roland , 67 Misc. 3d 330, 121 N.Y.S.3d 550 [N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2020] ). Therefore, the Court must charge the People with pre-readiness delay associated with...