People v. Villamar

Decision Date23 September 2020
Docket NumberCR-024184-19NY
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. David VILLAMAR, Defendant.
CourtNew York Criminal Court

69 Misc.3d 842
132 N.Y.S.3d 593

The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
David VILLAMAR, Defendant.

CR-024184-19NY

Criminal Court, City of New York.

Decided on September 23, 2020


132 N.Y.S.3d 594

Defendant was represented by Charanya Viswanathan, Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, 49 Thomas Street, New York, New York 10013, (212) 298-5309.

The People of the State of New York were represented by Assistant District Attorney John Cheever, Esq., of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, 1 Hogan Place, New York, New York 10013, (212) 335-3650.

Nicholas W. Moyne, J.

69 Misc.3d 843

On July 26, 2019, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint and charged with one count of Driving While Intoxicated ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3] ), an unclassified misdemeanor, and one count of Driving While Ability Impaired ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1] ), a traffic infraction. By Notice of Motion, served and filed on March 12, 2020, the defendant has moved for an order dismissing the charges based on the People's failure to be timely ready for trial, pursuant to the mandates of Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) §§ 30.30 and 170.30 (1)(e). The People oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted and the case is hereby dismissed.

If, as here, the top charge is a misdemeanor where the defendant could

132 N.Y.S.3d 595

be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three months, the People are required to be ready for trial within ninety days after commencement of the criminal action, less any excludable time ( CPL § 30.30[1][b] ). If a defendant has shown the existence of a delay greater than the ninety-day time period allowed by CPL § 30.30, it is the burden of the People to demonstrate that the excessive time is excludable (see , People v. Santos , 68 N.Y.2d 859, 508 N.Y.S.2d 411, 501 N.E.2d 19 [1986] ).

69 Misc.3d 844

The parties do not dispute that a total of forty-two (42) days are chargeable from the date of arraignment to December 13, 20191 . The case was on for hearings and trial on December 13, 2019, however, the People were not ready for trial because the assigned Assistant District Attorney was out of the office. The case was adjourned to January 15, 2020, for hearings and trial. December 13, 2019 was the final court appearance of 2019. The People filed and served an off-calendar Certificate of Readiness ("COR") on December 17, 2019. The December 17, 2019 Certificate of Readiness, made shortly before the Christmas break, was the People's first statement of readiness in this case. The People never stated their readiness, in 2019, on a date the matter was before the court and could have been sent to trial. The People concede that the four (4) days from December 13, 2019 to December 17, 2019 are chargeable to them. The People were not ready at the next court appearance on January 15, 2020.

The People contend that the filing of the Certificate of Readiness on December 17, 2019 tolled the speedy trial clock for the remainder of that adjournment period. The defendant contends that, due to changes in the Criminal Procedure Law, the People should be charged with the adjournment period from January 1, 2020 to January 15, 2020.

The focal point of the dispute concerns the effect of the new discovery and speedy trial laws on the People's discovery obligations and on the requirements the People must satisfy before they can make a valid representation that that are ready for trial. The newly enacted Article 245 of the CPL designates certain items of discovery as mandatory or automatic and sets forth a specific time frame for the People to fulfill those discovery obligations ( CPL §§ 245.20 ; 245.10). CPL § 245.10(1)(a) provided, in pertinent part, "The prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations under subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article as soon as practicable but not later than

69 Misc.3d 845

fifteen calendar days after the defendant's arraignment."2 This subparagraph further provides for an extension of up to thirty (30) days of the prosecution's obligation, without the need for a motion, for "materials which are exceptionally voluminous or, despite diligent, good faith efforts, are otherwise not in the actual possession of the prosecution." Pursuant to the time frame set forth in

132 N.Y.S.3d 596

CPL § 245.10, the People must comply with their mandatory discovery obligations without any need for a demand from the defense, unless the defense specifically waives discovery pursuant to CPL § 245.75. In other words, the onus is placed squarely on the People to produce what must be produced and no input or action from the defense is required or expected.

Additionally, and of great importance here, the newly enacted provisions of the CPL also require that the People comply with all discovery obligations outlined in section 245.20 as a prerequisite to their filing of a valid statement of readiness. ( CPL § 245.50 ). CPL § 245.50(1) requires that the prosecution "shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance[,]" when they have provided the discovery required by section 245.20. CPL § 245.50(3) further provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, absent an individualized finding of exceptional circumstances by the court before which the charge is pending, the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section.

Simultaneously with this enactment and effective date of this new Article 245, the Legislature added a new CPL § 30.30(5), providing, in pertinent part:

Any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20 of this chapter and the defense shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the record as to whether the disclosure requirements have been met.

In this case, as of January 15, 2020, the People had not filed a certificate of compliance. They did not file a certificate of compliance until February 20, 2020. While the People concede

69 Misc.3d 846

that the time period from January 15, 2020 to February 20, 2020 is chargeable, they maintain that the time period from January 1, 2020 to January 15, 2020 is excludable. The people put forth two arguments as to why they believe the adjournment period from January 1, 2020 to January 15, 2020 is not chargeable to them. First, they contend that the December 17, 2019 Certificate of Readiness served to toll the speedy trial clock from running for the remainder of the adjournment period and was not invalidated by the implementation of new discovery laws requiring a certificate of compliance (see People v. Percell , 67 Misc. 3d 190, 119 N.Y.S.3d 731 [Crim. Ct. New York County 2020] ). Second, the people contend that this period should be excluded pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(a) as a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to demand to produce (see People v. Roland , 67 Misc. 3d 330, 121 N.Y.S.3d 550 [Crim. Ct. Kings County 2020] ).

Essentially, the People are arguing that while the new laws may have affected the People's discovery obligations and ability to declare readiness for trial post January 1, 2020, they do not serve to invalidate or alter the status of an otherwise valid certificate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...to comply with their automatic discovery obligations, as set forth in CPL §§ 245.10 and 245.20(1)(a-u). See : People v. Villamar , 69 Misc. 3d 842, 132 N.Y.S.3d 593, (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2020) ; 73 Misc.3d 756 People v. DeMilio , 66 Misc. 3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 202......
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...People to comply with their automatic discovery obligations, as set forth in CPL §§ 245.10 and 245.20(1)(a-u). See: People v. Villamar, 69 Misc.3d 842, 132 N.Y.S.3d 593, (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020); People v. DeMilio, 66 Misc.3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020); People v. Lo......
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...People to comply with their automatic discovery obligations, as set forth in CPL §§ 245.10 and 245.20(1)(a-u). See: People v. Villamar, 69 Misc.3d 842, 132 N.Y.S.3d 593, (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020); People v. DeMilio, 66 Misc.3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020); People v. Lo......
  • People v. Salters
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • August 20, 2021
    ...People to comply with their automatic discovery obligations, as set forth in CPL §§ 245.10 and 245.20(1)(a-u). See: People v. Villamar, 69 Misc.3d 842, 132 N.Y.S.3d 593, (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020); People v. DeMilio, 66 Misc.3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020); People v. Lo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT