People v. Sarcone
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-034126-22NY |
| Decision Date | 06 July 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 50701 (U) |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York v. Hector Sarcone, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
Unpublished Opinion
The Legal Aid Society (Colby Williams and Michel Djandji, Esq. of Counsel), for defendant
Alvin Bragg, District Attorney (Chelsea McGee, Esq. of Counsel) for the people
Hon Lumarie Maldonado Cruz, J.C.C.
Defendant Hector Sarcone, charged with one count of Driving While Intoxicated [VTL 1192(3)], one count of Driving While Impaired [VTL 1192(1)], two counts of Leaving the Scene of an Accident without Reporting with Personal Injury [VTL 600(2)(a) and 600(2)(c)], and one count of Leaving the Scene of an Accident without Reporting with Personal Injury [VTL 600(1)(a)], moves by motion dated May 3, 2023, for an order 1) dismissing the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30 and CPL 170.30(1)(e); 2) dismissing the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30(5-a) and CPL 170.30(1); 3) finding the People's COC dated March 30, 2023 invalid under CPL 245.50(1); and 4) granting any other relief the Court deems proper. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion to find the People's COC, dated April 3, 2023, invalid and dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 and CPL 170.30(1)(e) is GRANTED.
Mr Sarcone was arrested on December 30, 2022, relating to a vehicular incident that occurred on the same day. Mr. Sarcone is alleged to have been driving in an intoxicated condition when he struck another vehicle, causing the occupant of that vehicle to suffer back and neck pain as a result of the collision. [1] The Defendant is further alleged to have stated in sum and substance "I was drinking" and "I had 5-6 ecstasy." [2]
On January 1, 2023, the Defendant was arraigned, and the matter was adjourned to January 30, 2023, for supporting deposition.
On January 30, 2023, the People filed and served a supporting deposition for Claire Cannon, one of two necessary supporting depositions for this case. The case was then adjourned again for conversion to March 13, 2023.
On March 13, 2023, the case was adjourned again for final conversion to April 3, 2023.
On March 30, 2023, off-calendar, the People filed with the Court a discovery disclosure list, a certificate of compliance (COC) and a certificate of readiness (COR) through the Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS). The People also served these items upon the Defense via eDiscovery. No supporting deposition from Police Officer Patrick Magee (PO Magee) was filed with the Court at this time leaving the charge of Operating a Vehicle While Ability Impaired by Alcohol [VTL 1192(4)] unconverted.
On April 3, 2023, the People stated ready for trial. The Court noted that it did not have a copy of the supporting deposition for PO Magee. The Court acknowledged receipt of a COC and COR that had previously been filed through EDDS on March 30, 2023. The standing ADA was unable to provide any additional information as to whether the supporting deposition for PO Magee had been filed with the court with the COC and COR. The Defense argued against conversion indicating the People failed to provide the supporting deposition to the court before the 90th chargeable day. The Court deemed the People ready, from the bench, and suggested that any conversion issues could be resolved through motion practice. The case was then adjourned to May 3, 2023, for trial.
On April 3, 2023, off calendar, the People filed with the Court a second discovery disclosure list, PO Magee's supporting deposition, a supplemental certificate of compliance (SCOC) and COR via the EDDS.
On May 3, 2023, the People moved to dismiss count three on the accusatory instrument, Operating a Motor Vehicle While Ability Impaired by Drugs [VTL 1192(4)]. On the same day Defense filed the instant motion to dismiss. The court then set a motion schedule and adjourned the case to June 20, 2023, for decision.
On May 18, 2023, the People filed their response off-calendar.
On June 26, 2023, the case was adjourned for decision again to July 7, 2023.
Mr Sarcone is accused of multiple charges, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony. The People are required to be ready for trial within 90 days from the commencement of the criminal action, less any excludable time. CPL 30.30(1)(b). Although commencement of a criminal action begins at the arraignment, computation for speedy trial purposes begins on the next day. People v. Stiles, 70 N.Y.2d 765 (1987). Once a defendant alleges that an excess of the allowable time has elapsed, the burden shifts to the People to demonstrate whether any periods are to be excluded from the calculation, such that the allowable time has not elapsed. People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859 (1986); People v. Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333 (1980).
Mr. Sarcone contends that the People's March 30, 2023, COC, and COR, filed off calendar and via EDDS, is invalid by not simultaneously filing PO Magee's supporting deposition, thus failing to convert the complaint to an information. Therefore, he argues that the People never tolled the speedy trail clock but rather accrued 123 days of includable time from the commencement of the action. The People contend that only 88 chargeable days have elapsed.
The People concede that they filed a COC, COR, ADF, and Discovery List off-calendar on March 30, 2023, via EDDS, but inadvertently failed to include PO Magee's supporting deposition. [3] They argue, however, that on April 3, 2023, the case was properly converted and deemed an information by the Court, the "first business day after the 90 days allotted under CPL 30.30." [4] They rely on General Construction Law § 25-a(1) which provides that, when the 90th day of statutory time pursuant to CPL 30.30 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the People have until the next business day to state ready. People v. Powell, 179 Misc.2d 1047, 1048 (2nd Dept. 1999).
Only when the complaint is deemed an information, and the People certify compliance with their discovery obligations, can the People answer ready. The People are deemed "ready for trial" when they either 1) communicate their actual readiness in open court or 2) file a certificate of readiness with the court and serve a copy on defense counsel. People v. Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331 (1985). "Effective readiness" requires that a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument has been filed. See, People v. Morris, 63 Misc.3d 626 ( (citing, People v. Matthew P., 26 N.Y.3d 332, 335 [2015]; People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 103 (2010) ()) Hence, here, when on Monday, April 3, 2023, the People filed, via EDDS, the missing supporting deposition for PO Magee, ADF, COC, and COR, their statement of readiness was valid, as said date was the first business day following the 90th day of statutory speedy trial time.
Mr Sarcone challenges the validity of the People's COC and COR dated April 3, 2023, contending that the People have failed to disclose certain discoverable materials pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 245.20(1). Explicitly, Defendant argues that the People, prior to filing their COC and COR on April 3, 2023, failed to turn over: 1) underlying logs for all substantiated and unsubstantiated police misconduct allegations for Police Officer Rafael Cruz (PO Cruz) under CPL § 245.20(1)(k); 2) underlying Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) documentation for allegations against PO Cruz; 3) medical records for the complaining witness; 4) adequate contact information via Witcom for the complaining witness; 5) Giglio materials for Police Officer Jamarie Alba (PO Alba) and Sergeant Shannon O'Brien (Sgt. O'Brien); and 6) photos of the alleged property damaged in the instant matter, taken by the complaining witness.
The People declared that they have acted reasonably and complied in good faith in making the obligated discovery disclosures. The People acknowledge that after filing the April 3, 2023, COC, and COR, they turned over missing items (previously listed as items 5-6). The People further argue that 1) CPL § 245.20(1)(k) does not require the People to disclose all underlying police misconduct records; 2) they turned over all impeachment materials in their actual possession; 3) all underlying disciplinary records are not in the actual possession of the prosecution; 4) they reasonably relied on trial court case law holding that the disclosures the People made in the instant matter were sufficient to comply with CPL 245; and 5) CPL § 245.20(1)(k) only requires the People to disclose "information that relates to the 'subject matter of the case.'" [5]
Pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1), the "prosecution shall disclose to the defendant all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control...." It also requires the prosecutor to CPL 245.20(2). [6]
Specifically CPL § 245.20(1)(k) requires, among other things, that the prosecution disclose: "All evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in the case, that tends to" impeach the credibility of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial