People v. Roland
| Decision Date | 28 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | CR-012494-19KN |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Lorenzo ROLAND, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
67 Misc.3d 330
121 N.Y.S.3d 550
The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Lorenzo ROLAND, Defendant.
CR-012494-19KN
Criminal Court, City of New York.
Decided February 28, 2020
For the defendant: Sneha Dhanapal, The Legal Aid Society
For the People: Jerome Bivona, Kings County District Attorney's Office
Michael D. Kitsis, J.
The defendant, charged with violations of Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs ( V.T.L. §§ 1192(1), (2), (3) ), along with one count each of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle ( V.T.L. § 511(1)(A) ) and Unlicensed Operator ( V.T.L. § 509(1) );1 now moves for an order dismissing the
information pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b).
After careful review of the defendant's motion, the People's response, the defendant's reply, and all relevant legal authority, the motion to dismiss is denied. The Court finds that 87 chargeable days have accrued since arraignment.
March 31, 2019 — May 8, 2019
On March 31, 2019, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint on which the highest charge was a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of one year. V.T.L. § 1193. Thus, the People had 90 days to be ready to proceed to trial. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). The defendant was released on his own recognizance and the case was adjourned to May 8, 2019 for conversion. On May 6, 2019, the People served and filed a statement of readiness along with a superseding information. The V.T.L. § 600(1)(A) count remained unconverted.
36 chargeable days.
May 8, 2019 — June 5, 2019
On May 8, 2019, the People maintained their readiness on all counts except the one charging V.T.L. § 600(1)(A). Prior to January 1, 2020, courts have accepted statements of "partial readiness" by the People. See People v. Dion , 93 N.Y.2d 893, 689 N.Y.S.2d 685, 711 N.E.2d 963 (1999) ; People v. Brooks , 190 Misc. 2d 247, 736 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1st Dept. 2001). The case was adjourned for Discovery by Stipulation to June 5, 2019 as well as conversion of the V.T.L. § 600(1)(A) count. Because adjournments for discovery are designated in the statute as "other proceedings concerning the defendant," this time period is excludable from the 30.30 calculation. See C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).
0 chargeable days.
June 5, 2019 — July 15, 2019
On June 5, 2019, the People served discovery on the defendant and the case was adjourned to July 15, 2019 for hearings and trial and conversion of the V.T.L. § 600(1)(A) count.2 Under the rules for calculating speedy trial time as they existed in 2019, this adjournment is excludable pursuant to People v. Reed , 19 A.D.3d 312, 798 N.Y.S.2d 47 (1st Dept. 2005) ; People v. Greene , 223 A.D.2d 474, 637 N.Y.S.2d 79 (1st Dept. 1996). But see People v. Collins , 190 Misc. 2d 72, 735 N.Y.S.2d 912 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2001).
0 chargeable days.
July 15, 2019 — September 12, 2019
On July 15, 2019, the People were not ready for trial and requested 11 days because the arresting officer was not available. The case was adjourned to September 12, 2019 for hearings and trial. Because the People had previously announced their readiness to proceed, they are not charged for the time period of the adjournment in excess of the time they requested. People v. Nielsen , 306 A.D.2d 500, 761 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2d Dept. 2003) ; People v. Williams , 229 A.D.2d 603, 646 N.Y.S.2d 142 (2d Dept. 1996).
11 chargeable days.
September 12, 2019 — October 18, 2019
On September 12, 2019, the People were not ready for trial because the assigned ADA was engaged on another trial, and the People requested 21 days. The case was adjourned for hearings and trial
to October 18, 2019. Again, the People are not charged for the period of the adjournment in excess of the time they requested, supra .
21 chargeable days.
October 18, 2019 — November 12, 2019
On October 18, 2019, the People were not ready for trial because the arresting officer was not available and the People requested 14 days. The case was adjourned for hearings and trial to November 12, 2019. As stated above, the People are not charged for the period of the adjournment in excess of the time they requested.
14 chargeable days.
November 12, 2019 — November 20, 2019
On November 12, 2019, the People announced ready for trial but defense counsel was unavailable. The case was adjourned to November 20, 2019 for hearings and trial. Since the adjournment was granted at the defendant's request, it is excludable. C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(b) ; see also People v. Barden , 27 N.Y.3d 550, 36 N.Y.S.3d 80, 55 N.E.3d 1053 (2016) ; People v. Worley , 66 N.Y.2d 523, 498 N.Y.S.2d 116, 488 N.E.2d 1228 (1985).
0 chargeable days.
November 20, 2019 — November 21, 2019
On November 20, 2019, the arresting officer was unavailable and the assigned ADA was engaged on another case. At the People's request, the case was adjourned one day, and the People were charged for that day.
1 chargeable day.
November 21, 2019 — December 16, 2019
On November 21, 2019, the parties appeared before this Court, and preliminary matters were resolved. It was too late in the day to start testimony, and the case was put over one day, at which point this Court presided over the pre-trial suppression hearing, which lasted two days. The case was then adjourned to December 16, 2019 for decision and trial. This period is excludable as a period necessary for the decision of pre-trial motions, namely, the defendant's motions to suppress.
0 chargeable days.
December 16, 2019 — December 20, 2019
On December 16, 2019, this Court issued its decision on the defendant's suppression motion. The People were not ready to start trial because a necessary witness was unavailable, and the case was adjourned to December 20, 2019 for trial.
4 chargeable days.
December 20, 2019 — January 6, 2020
On December 20, 2019, both parties were ready to proceed to trial. However, there were no trial parts available, and the case was adjourned to January 6, 2020 for trial. Because the People were ready and this adjournment was due to court scheduling alone, it is excludable. People v. Watson , 255 A.D.2d 344, 681 N.Y.S.2d 36 (2d Dept. 1998).
0 chargeable days.
January 6, 2020 — January 13, 2020
On January 6, 2020, the People announced ready for trial, and served and filed a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to
C.P.L. § 245.50(1), which had taken effect on January 1, 2020. However, defense counsel immediately challenged the validity of the People's Certificate of Compliance because specific items that were required to be disclosed under C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(s), including the Intoxilyzer machine operator's certificate and the gas chromatography records related to the
certification of the simulator solution. The case was adjourned one day for the People to satisfy their discovery obligations. On January 7, 2020, the People served and filed a supplemental Certificate of Compliance, which defense counsel again challenged as invalid, because the People at that point had provided incomplete gas chromatography records. The case was again adjourned one day for the People to comply. On January 8, 2020, the case was called and the People were still missing certain gas chromatography records; the case was then adjourned to January 13, 2020.
Following the calendar call on January 8, 2020, the People served and filed a new Certificate of Compliance (COC) with a Statement of Readiness. On January 13, 2020, the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Adrovic
...C.P.L. § 245.10(1), that 15 days are excludable from the speedy trial calculation pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a). People v. Roland , 67 Misc. 3d 330, 121 N.Y.S.3d 550 (Kings Co. Crim. Ct. 2020). Consequently, the People had 15 days from January 1, 2020, the effective date of the legislati......
-
People v. Davis
...v. Barnett , 68 Misc..3d 1000, 1002-03, 129 N.Y.S.3d 293 [Sup. Ct., New York County, 2020]. ; Cf. People v. Roland , 67 Misc. 3d 330, 121 N.Y.S.3d 550 [Crim. Ct., New York County 2020] [first fifteen days from January 1, 2020 are excluded for the purposes of speedy trial calculations]; Peop......
-
People v. King
...69 Misc.3d 563, 567-568 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020]; People v Villamar, 69 Misc.3d 842, 849 [Crim Ct, NY County 2020]; People v Roland, 67 Misc.3d 330, 335 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020]; People v Nge, 67 Misc.3d 650, 654 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020]). That interpretation flows directly from......
-
People v. Dobrzenski
...a certificate of compliance with the mandate of CPL § 245.20 before they can be deemed ready for trial" ( People v. Roland, 67 Misc. 3d 330, 121 N.Y.S.3d 550 [N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2020] ) The Court finds this to be the appropriate standard as it has subsequently been held, for matters which ......