People v. Sterritt, 19060233
| Decision Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19060233 |
| Citation | 125 N.Y.S.3d 838 (Table),67 Misc.3d 1202 (A) |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. James L. STERRITT, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
FOR THE PEOPLE: PAUL CZAJKA, ESQ., COLUMBIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 325 Columbia Street, Hudson, New York 12534, By: Trevor O. Flike, Assistant District Attorney
FOR THE DEFENDANT: GERSTENZANG, SILLS, COHN & GERSTENZANG, 210 Great Oaks Boulevard, Albany, New York 12203, By: Joseph M. Gerstenzang, Esq.
On June 20, 2019, Simplified Traffic Informations were issued charging the defendant with Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated in violation of NYS VTL§ 1192(2-a)(a), common law Driving While Intoxicated in violation of NYS VTL§ 1192(3), and Moving From Lane Unsafely in violation of NYS VTL§ 1128(a). A certified breath analysis and DWI Bill of Particulars were also filed with the Court. The Simplified Traffic Informations were made returnable to this Court on July 24, 2019 at 4pm. Court was not in session on July 24, 2019 at 4pm.
Defendant was notified by the Court to appear on July 17, 2019, however, defendant failed to appear on that date, and the case was rescheduled for August 28, 2019. At the August 28, 2019 court date, the Defendant appeared with counsel.
At that appearance, by Notice of Motion dated August 20, 2019, the defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds "that the Court was not in session at the time that the appearance tickets were returnable ". Before the Court decided the motion, the People served upon the defendant and filed with this Court superseding simplified traffic informations alleging the same three violations of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law.
The defendant was arraigned on all charges on October 2, 2019, at which time the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The Court subsequently held a Pringle hearing and the defendant's driving privileges were suspended pending prosecution. Thereafter, the Defendant demanded a supporting deposition with regard to "each charge against the defendant." That demand was received by the Court on or about October 7, 2019.
On or about November 14, 2019, the defendant filed an omnibus motion seeking the following relief from the Court:
(8) for the Court to issue a decision setting forth its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the reasons for its determination, and
(9) granting an order permitting future motions.
On or about December 16, 2019, the People filed with the Court the affirmation of Trevor O Flike, Esq., in opposition to defendant's omnibus motion. In the affirmation, the People argue that:
(7) that the People oppose suppression of tangible evidence, asserting that the NYS State Trooper had probable cause for the arrest and therefore oppose defendant's request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, and
(8) that the People oppose defendant's request for leave to make future motions.
With respect to defendant's August 20, 2019 motion to dismiss the DWI accusatory instruments as defective, the Court finds that the accusatory instruments are sufficient on their face. Defendant argues that the initial simplified traffic informations filed with the Court were defective since they contained a return date for when the Court was not in session. The Court never ruled upon the defendant's previously filed motion to dismiss dated August 20, 2019, because it was unclear whether the same was properly withdrawn. In any event, and in the Court's discretion, it is appropriate to rule on that motion at this time. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the original simplified traffic informations is hereby denied.
Under the Uniform Justice Court Act, "the court shall have such jurisdiction of criminal matters as is prescribed by the criminal procedure law."1 Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court upon the filing of the simplified traffic information2 . Personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not exist until the defendant is validly arraigned, except where "a procedure is provided by law which is applicable to all offenses charged in such simplified information and, if followed, would dispense with an arraignment or personal appearance of [a] defendant".3 A simplified traffic information "may serve both to commence a criminal action for such offense and as a basis for prosecution" once it is filed in a local criminal court and then the court will have jurisdiction to issue process and warrants and conduct trials within the constraints of NYS CPL § 100.25 and CPL § 1.20(5)(b).4
Before the amendment to NYS VTL § 1806, the failure of a court to be open on the return date of the Simplified traffic informations deprived the court of jurisdiction to proceed further with said simplified traffic informations5 . Prior to the amendment of NYS VTL § 1806, the Court was required to schedule a traffic matter for trial upon the receipt of a not guilty plea by mail (see, People v. Cruz , supra. at 783-784). The logic was that under the prior law, an error in the return date on a simplified traffic information would lead to the defendant showing up ready for trial and the prosecution not being ready for trial entitling a defendant to a dismissal of the simplified traffic information.
In 2009 the Legislature amended NYS VTL § 1806 to make it incumbent upon the Court to schedule an "appearance" date before scheduling a trial.6 The statute was further amended in 2012 to clarify that "no testimony shall be taken" at the first appearance date7 . "There is no consequence upon failure to appear for the appearance date as the court must notify the defendant of a new appearance date ."8 The statute gives the defendant the option of pleading not guilty by mail, and upon receipt of the plea the court shall:
advise the violator, by first class mail, of an appearance at which no testimony shall be taken. If the motorist requests a trial, the court shall set a trial date on a date subsequent to the date of the initial appearance and shall notify the defendant of the date by first class mail but no warrant of arrest for failure to appear can be issued until the violator is notified of a new court appearance date by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and fails to appear.9
The failure of the court to arraign a defendant in person does not deprive it of jurisdiction to schedule a pre-trial conference/trial date, or to issue a warrant of arrest for failure to appear after sending the defendant appropriate notices.10
Accordingly, any errors on the simplified traffic informations relating to the return date are not jurisdictional, as they simply notify defendant of a pre-trial conference only11 . Therefore, the original simplified traffic informations which were filed with the Court did not deprive the Court of either personal or subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court may send a defendant a notice of a pre-trial conference by regular mail, and absent a response or appearance, thereafter is to send another notice by certified mail return receipt requested before issuing an arrest warrant12 . Moreover, the Court has the power to order a suspension of defendant's driving privileges for nonappearance at said pre-trial conference13 .
The Court finds that the original simplified traffic informations are sufficient on their face and the DWI Bill of Particulars/Supporting Deposition filed therewith satisfied defendant's demand for a supporting deposition with respect to the DWI charges.
With respect to the Defendant's November 14, 2019 Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues further that the superseding simplified traffic informations that were filed with the Court are defective because the People failed to file a second DWI Bill of Particulars/Supporting Deposition in support of the superseding simplified traffic informations. With respect to the superseding simplified traffic informations, although the Court accepted the same for filing, they cannot supersede and replace the original Simplified Traffic Informations filed with the Court14 .
To continue reading
Request your trial