People v. Vargas
| Decision Date | 09 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-010123-22BX |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, v. Anthony Vargas, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
Unpublished Opinion
For the People: Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County
(by Douglas Chau)
For the Defendant: Alexis R. Bueno, Esq.
Hon Yadhira González-Taylor, J.C.C.
Defendant moves, inter alia, for dismissal of the misdemeanor charges on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 30.30 and 210.20 (1) (g). [1] Specifically, defendant contests the validity of the People's certificate of compliance ("COC"), first supplemental certificate of compliance ("SCOC") and second supplemental certificate of compliance ("SSCOC") due to the People's failure to comply with their disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) prior to the expiration of their speedy trial time. The People oppose the motion.
Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the court finds that the People's COC, first SCOC and second SCOC, filed August 31, 2022, September 6, 2022 and December 20, 2022 respectively, were valid. Accordingly, the People's prosecution pursuant to CPL § 30.30 was not untimely and defendant's motion is denied in part and granted in part.
On June 8, 2022, defendant Anthony Vargas was arrested and charged with three violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL"), § 1192 (3) (driving while intoxicated), §1192 (1) (driving while impaired) and § 1212 (reckless driving).
On June 10, 2022, defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance. The People filed their COC and statement of readiness ("SOR") on August 31, 2022, which represented, in relevant part, that the prosecution might present items including body worn camera ("BWC") footage and a report of refusal to submit to chemical test. The People further identified Arresting Officer ("A.O.") R.J., Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit ("IDTU") Officer J.H. and Lieutenant J.H. as potential witnesses. [2] On September 6, 2022, the People filed their first SCOC, which lists, in pertinent part, IDTU Officer J.H. and Lieutenant J.G. as potential witnesses and restates that the prosecution might produce BWC and a Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") refusal report. On December 20, 2022, the People filed a second SCOC wherein they detailed their efforts to locate additional BWC footage and corrected a prior misstatement in their COC that Giglio material had been produced for A.O. R.J., whom the prosecution had decided not to call as a witness. The People further represented that based upon defendant's claim that BWC footage was missing for two officers, they conferred with their BCW unit and subsequently identified and produced missing footage for Sgt. K. and Police Officer ("P.O.") M.
At a conference held on February 22, 2023, defense counsel reported that they had met with the People to review disputed discovery items and that the assigned ADA had confirmed with the precinct that no other BWC footage existed, and advised the court that defendant was still reviewing discovery items.
On March 24, 2023, defendant filed the instant motion challenging the propriety of the People's COC and SCOCs pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (1) and seeking dismissal of the information pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 and 210.20 (1) (g). Specifically, defendant argues that the People's COC and SCOCs are invalid because they failed to produce certain discoverable items in compliance with CPL § 245.20 (1) and, thus, failed to satisfy their discovery obligations prior to the expiration of their speed trial clock. The People oppose the motion and assert that they made good faith attempts to identify and produce discoverable items, including BWC trails for 22 officers. The prosecution also states that they acted deliberately to address deficiencies in the BWC disclosure once alerted by defense counsel. However, they maintain that the remaining items that serve as a basis for the defense's challenge, namely BWC audit trails, Giglio evidence for a non-testifying witness and DMV refusal hearing documents, are not discoverable. On April 28, 2023, defendant filed a reply to the People's opposition to reiterate his objection to the COC and SCOCs.
Criminal Procedure Law § 245.20 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that the prosecution shall disclose to defendant and permit defendant to "discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control." Including in the enumerated items is "[a]ll evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf" (People v Perez, 75 Misc.3d 1205 [A] at *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]).
Pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (1), where the prosecution has complied with their disclosure obligations, the People are required to serve a COC on defendant and file it with the court as a condition precedent to announcing their readiness for trial. However, if the prosecution should subsequently provide additional discovery prior to trial pursuant to CPL § 245.60, which mandates a continuing duty to disclose, then "a supplemental certificate shall be served upon the defendant and filed with the court identifying the additional material and information provided" (CPL § 245.50 [1]). Further, "[a]ny supplemental certificate of compliance shall detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance" (CPL § 245.50 [1-a]).
Where defendant alleges that the People's COC is invalid because they have failed to discharge their discovery obligations, the People must establish that they have met their burden. (see e.g., People v Spaulding, 75 Misc.3d 1219 [A], at *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022] ["They must certify that they have complied- that "the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery"] citing CPL § 245.50 [1-a]).
Courts have examined the COC for an explanation of the People's efforts to ensure that they have turned over all known discoverable materials. (see Perez, 75 Misc.3d 1205 [A], *3). Additionally, following a challenge to the validity of the COC, courts inquire whether the prosecution has done all that is required of them to bring a case to the point that it could be tried. (see e.g., People v Vargas, 76 Misc.3d 646, 652, 171 N.Y.S.3d 877, 882 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022] ["(A) bare-bones assertion does not provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to make a finding or good faith or due diligence"] [internal quotations and citations omitted] but see People v Diaz, 77 Misc.3d 727, 733, 178 N.Y.S.3d 912, 916 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022] ["Numerous provisions of article 245 provide that compliance based on due diligence which is reasonable under the circumstances of the case is a sufficient basis upon which to file a COC in good faith even if some items are otherwise unavailable, and that if these conditions exist, a court can deem the COC valid and the People ready for trial"]).
Defendant asserts that BWC footage of Sgt. K. and P.O. J.M. was not disclosed prior to the People's COC and first SCOC filing, and that BCW audit trails, though uploaded to OneDrive on January 27, 2023, were never served on the defense. (Def. Aff. at 8).
Defendant also claims that the following items remain outstanding 1) BWC for "several officers on the scene," 2) BWC audit trails, 3) underlying documentation relating to unsubstantiated and unsubstantiated disciplinary records for A.O. R.J., and 4) DMV refusal hearing documents. (Def. Aff. at 8).
The People counter that they disclosed 22 BWC videos contemporaneously with their COC on August 31, 2022, and that once defendant contacted them on December 13, 2022, to confer over discovery issues, they first became aware that the defense claimed there was missing footage for four officers. The People assert that they immediately began an investigation and determined that BWC video for Sgt. K. and P.O. J.M. had not previously been disclosed. Their investigation also confirmed that BWC footage for Lieutenant G. had already been produced, and the prosecution learned that A.O. R.J. was not wearing a BWC on the date in question. The People contend that their efforts to ascertain the existence of any outstanding BWC materials demonstrate their due diligence to correct an unintentional oversight. (People's Aff. at 7-8).
Next, the People aver that BWC audit trails are not discoverable under CPL § 245.20 (1) and cite to caselaw in support of their contention. The prosecution further notes that until the instant motion, the defense never requested this information. (People's Aff. at 7).
Concerning disclosure of underlying documentation for unsubstantiated and substantiated disciplinary records for A.O. R.J., the People contend that Giglio disclosure is not required for a non-testifying officer and cite to CPL § 245.20 (1) (k)(iv) for the proposition that they need only disclose Giglio material "[to] impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness." (People's Aff. at 9).
Lastly, the People assert that the DMV is not a law enforcement agency and, as such, their statutory obligation pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) does not extend to documents concerning a DMV refusal hearing. (People's Aff. at 9-10).
While CPL § 245.50 (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial