The People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Royster
| Decision Date | 20 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | 20905C-09 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, v. Keith Royster, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Hannah Gladstein, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant
Katie Wasserman, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Defendant Keith Royster was charged with Assault in the Third Degree, P.L. § 120.00(1), Obstruction of Governmental Administration, P.L. § 195.05, and Harassment P.L. § 240.26(1), arising out of an incident that occurred on January 28, 2009, at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island where Defendant was then incarcerated.
On May 13, 2009, Defendant filed an omnibus motion seeking, among other things, to have the Court: (1) suppress all testimony regarding any identifications of Defendant; (2) preclude the introduction of any additional statements or identification testimony at trial; (3) preclude the People from introducing at trial evidence not supplied in response to Defendant's Request for a Bill of Particulars; and (4) preclude the Peoplefrom introducing evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts.
The People submitted an opposition, filed on May 27, 2009, to Defendant's motion.
On May 27, 2009, the Honorable Ann Donnelly granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendant's motion. Judge Donnelly granted Defendant a Wade-Dunaway hearing and ordered the People to provide discovery prior to the hearing. The Court also reserved the Sandoval and Ventimiglia issues as to Defendant to the trial court.
On August 30, 2010, the parties appeared before this Court for the Wade-Dunaway hearing. The People moved to dismiss the charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration and Assault in the Third Degree and to add the charge of Attempted Assault in the Third Degree, P.L. § 110.00/120.00. Defendant did not object to the amendment and the motion was granted.
After the People's case in the hearing, Defendant asked the Court to dismiss the action in the interest of justice as he had already served the maximum sentence of incarceration allowable in this case and a trial of the matter would not be an effective use of the Court's resources. Transcript of Hearing, August 30, 2010, at p. 67.
Upon consideration of each of the factors relevant to a dismissal in the interest of justice, the Court dismisses the misdemeanor information against Defendant with prejudice. The Court finds that, in these difficult economic times and in light of the serious backlog of cases awaiting trial in Bronx County, 1 a guilty verdict would provide no benefit to the People, the Defendant or the community. The Court notes that the maximum period of incarceration that Defendant could face, if found guilty after trial, is 90 days on the Class B misdemeanor and 15 days on the violation.2
On the date of trial, Defendant already had served more than two months beyond the maximum period he would have had to serve if convicted.3 For the reasonsdiscussed below, in this case, the interest of justice demands that the charges be dismissed.
This matter demonstrates the complicated and delicate balancing that the Court must conduct in determining whether to dismiss a case in the interest of justice. The Court must weigh and consider ten factors: (1) the seriousness and circumstances of the offense; (2) the extent of harm caused by the offense; (3) the evidence of guilt and whether admissible or not at trial; (4) the history, character and condition of the defendant; (5) any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel; (6) the purpose and effect of imposing a sentence upon the defendant; (7) the impact of dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community; (8) the impact of a dismissal on the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system; (9) where the court deems it appropriate, the attitude of the complainant or victim with respect to the motion; and (10) any other relevant fact indicating that conviction would serve no useful purpose. See CPL § 170.40; People v. Colon, 86 NY2d 861, 863 (1995); People v. Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 127, 446 N.E.2d 419, 421 (1983); People v. Payne, 2002 NY Slip Op 50293U, *4 (Mount Vernon City Ct. 2002)(especially important are the nature of offense, evidence against defendant and defendant's history, the purpose and effect of imposing upon a sentence, and confidence of the public in the criminal justice system). Although the Court need not engage in a "point-by-point catechistic" discussion of these factors, Rickert, 58 NY2d at 128, the Court has reviewed the factors both "individually and collectively" and, upon consideration of these factors, finds that the interest of justice requires a dismissal of the charges. People v. Harmon, 181 AD2d 34, 35 (1st Dept. 1992); People v. Stockwell, 18 Misc 3d 1145A, 2008 NY Slip. Op. 50444U, *4 (Watertown City Ct. 2008).
With respect to the nature of the offenses, here, the most serious offense charged is a Class B misdemeanor; the other charge is a violation which does not constitute a criminal offense. Thus, these charges fall at or near the low end of the scale of serious crimes. As noted by the Court of Appeals, the lesser the offense, the more available the remedy of a dismissal in the interest of justice. People v. Rickert, 58 NY2d at 132 ().
With respect to the Court's consideration of the purpose and effect of imposing a sentence, which is to punish, rehabilitate, deter crime, and protect the community, People v. Colon, 209 AD2d at 256; People v. Vecchio, 139 Misc 2d 165, 169 (Sup. Ct., Queens Co. 1987), the Court notes that no such remedies exist in this case. Here, if convicted of all counts, Defendant already would have served more than the maximum sentence of incarceration he could receive on these charges. Whether convicted or not, Defendant would be released. Thus, convicting and sentencing Defendant will have no effect on punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, or protection of the community. People v. Bruno, 11 Misc 3d 1083A, 2006 NY Slip. Op 50681U, *5-6 (Sup. Ct., New York Co. 2006)(where defendant completed drug program and remained drug free for two years, conviction would serve no useful purpose); People v. Brooks, 142 Misc 2d 678, 685-86 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 1988)(retribution end was served by defendant's year in jail prior to trial); People v. Payne, 2002 NY Slip Op 50293U, *4-5 (); People v. P., 106 Misc 2d 1075, 1079 (Just. Ct., Twn. of Greenburgh 1980)(misdemeanor charges dismissed where $50.00 fine after conviction does nothing more after defendant has been punished by arrest, fingerprinting and holding for hours).
With respect to the Court's consideration of the effect on the safety and welfare of the community, a dismissal also will have no effect as Defendant would not be incarcerated even if, after a trial, he were found guilty as he already has served almost twice the period of time to which he could have been sentenced. People v. Pope, 53 AD2d 651, 651 (2nd Dept. 1971)(where defendant had already served maximum time when conviction reversed, indictment dismissed in interest of justice); People v. Pugh, 150 AD2d 734, 735 (2nd Dept. 1989). See also People v. Payne, 2002 NY Slip Op 50293U, *4-5 (); People v. Brooks, 142 Misc 2d 678, 685, 538 N.Y.S.2d 387, 392 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 1988)(court considered the fact that defendant already had served one year of a possible minimum two year sentence in dismissing in interest of justice).
With respect to the Court's consideration of the community's confidence in the criminal justice system, such confidence can only be increased by a dismissal in the interest of justice in this case. The public's confidence in the criminal justice system is based on equally important factors — the prosecution and punishment of crimes and fairness. People v. Reets, 157 Misc 2d 515, *518 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 1993).
The public can have no confidence in a criminal justice system that would regularly incarcerate defendants awaiting trial for periods longer than the potential sentences those defendants would face after a conviction. See, e.g., Report of Committee to Utilize the Services of Retired Judges, Bill Jacket, L 1983, ch 840, at 60 (); NY County Lawyers' Ass'n. v. State, 192 Misc 2d 424, 433 (Sup. Ct., New York Co. 2002) (), aff'd, 294 AD2d 69 (1st Dept. 2002).
While the People are apparently untroubled by their representation to this Court that "there are a lot of circumstances in which people serve the maximum amount of time before they're actually given the opportunity to have a hearing or trial," (see Transcript at 68), such a situation cannot be countenanced by this Court. Indeed, the public's confidence in the criminal justice system is better served by ensuring that the resources which would be used to prosecute this case are applied to reduce the backlog of other more serious cases where a defendant is incarcerated awaiting trial.
The very foundations of the State's system of criminal jurisprudence — due process and the presumption of innocence — are undermined if pretrial detentionslasting longer than the possible sentences defendants could receive if convicted after trial become a systemic part of the criminal justice system. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746-49, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 107 S. Ct. 2095 (1987) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial