Opinion
Docket No. CR-003252-23BX
09-28-2023
The People of the State of New York, v. Vincenz Figueroa, Defendant.
For the People: Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County (by: ADA Rymea Bond) For the Defendant: Leanne Fornelli, Esq.
Unpublished Opinion
For the People: Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County (by: ADA Rymea Bond)
For the Defendant: Leanne Fornelli, Esq.
Hon. Yadhira González-Taylor, J.C.C.
By motion dated July 28, 2023, defendant moved, inter alia, for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 30.30 and 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, defendant contests the validity of the People's CoC due to the People's purported failure to comply with their disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) prior to the expiration of their speedy trial time. The People's opposition and defendant's reply were filed on September 1, 2023 and September 5, 2023, respectively.
Defendant also challenges the People's Certificate of Compliance ("CoC") pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (4) (c).
Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the People's CoC filed May 1, 2023, was valid. Accordingly, the People's prosecution pursuant to CPL § 30.30 was not untimely and defendant's motion is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2023, defendant Vincenz Figueroa was arrested and charged with Penal Law ("PL") § 600 (2) (a) (leaving the scene of an incident without reporting), a Class B misdemeanor.
On February 11, 2023, defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance. The People filed their CoC and statement of readiness ("SoR") on May 1, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the People filed a supplemental CoC ("SCoC"), which advised the defense that a command log, Prisoner Holding Pen roster, a WINQ, and the complaining witness' medical records were being disclosed because these items had not previously been in the People's actual possession.
The validity of the People's supplemental CoC ("SCoC") is not germane to the Court's analysis.
At a conference held on July 7, 2023, the parties advised this Court that while all discovery disputes had been resolved the defendant wanted a motion schedule to challenge the CoC based upon discovery items belatedly disclosed.
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable Standard for CoC Challenge
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 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]).
Where defendant alleges that the 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 Figueroa, 76 Misc.3d 888, 892 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022] citing People v Payne, 75 Misc.3d 1224 [A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50656 [U], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022]; see also People v Spaulding, 75 Misc.3d 1219 [A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50544 [U], *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 at *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 Rodriguez, 77 Misc.3d 23, 25 [1st Dept 2022] but see People v Diaz, 77 Misc.3d 727, 733 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022].
II. The Parties' Arguments
Defendant avers that the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence to fulfill the People's discovery obligations prior to filing the CoC and SoR (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 4, 9, 10).
Defendant states that the missing items subject to discovery pursuant to C.P.L § 245.20(1), a command log, Prisoner Holding Pen roster, WINQ, and the complaining witness' medical records, were all disclosed belatedly by the People, after the filing of their initial CoC on May 1, 2023 (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 5).
Defendant further argues that the prosecution should be charged speedy trial time for their failure to disclose items subject to discovery pursuant to CPL § 240.20 (1) prior to initially certifying compliance (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 9).
Lastly, defendant maintains that the People's lack of due diligence is demonstrated by their failure to review discovery for missing items prior to filing their CoC (affirmation of defendant's counsel at 9).
The People's opposition asserts that after several requests by the prosecution for the NYPD to provide additional discovery from February 10, 2023, to May 1, 2023, they were unable to obtain a reply from Arresting Officer ("AO") Detective Lovera and that the lack of response from the NYPD led them to believe that such documents did not exist (affirmation in support of People's opposition at 4, 5).
Next, the People argue that they exercised due diligence by promptly contacting the NYPD and AO Detective Lovera after defense counsel notified them about missing discovery items on June 21, 2023, and that these items were exchanged the following day with their SCoC (affirmation in support of People's opposition at 6).
Lastly, the People argue that notwithstanding the belated disclosure, their CoC is valid because of their good faith and substantial compliance with CPL § 245. 20 (1) (affirmation in support of People's opposition at 6, 7).
III. The Court's Analysis
Criminal Procedure Law § 245.50 (1-a) expressly provides that the "[t]he filing of a supplemental certificate of compliance shall not impact the validity of the original certificate of compliance if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence," or if the additional discovery did not exist when the CoC was initially filed (see CPL § 245.50 [1-a]). Contrary to defense counsel's assertion that "[a]ll means all," courts have recognized that the People are not statutorily required to produce every single piece of discoverable material before certifying their compliance (People v Erby, 68 Misc.3d 625, 633 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2020]; see also People v. Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 23275, *3 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]; People v. Basora, 79 Misc.3d 1230 [A], *5, [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]; People v. Matos, 79 Misc.3d 1208 [A], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]; People v. Miller, 79 Misc.3d 1032, *1038 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]).
Additionally, the statutory caveat that a CoC shall be filed when the People have "disclosed and made available all known material and information" makes clear that the Legislature anticipated that a prosecution's ability to identify the universe of discoverable material might be constrained by a continuing investigation; therefore the People's duty to disclose is continuing (CPL §§ 245.50 and 245.60 (1) [emphasis added]). Accordingly, this Court respectfully declines to impose a strict compliance standard for discovery where the Legislature did not venture to enact one.
Defense counsel's motion is entirely predicated on belated disclosure of 1) a command log, 2) Prisoner Holding Pen roster, 3) a warrant check inquiry ("WINQ"), and 4) the complaining witness' medical records. The People have enumerated and documented several attempts to procure material responsive to discovery demands from their initial discovery request on February 10, 2023 through June 21, 2023, and they argue persuasively that when the CoC was filed they believed that the only outstanding materials pending disclosure were the complainant's medical records. Indeed, at the May 15, 2023 conference before Hon. Matthew Bondy, the CoC was deemed valid subject to defense objections and counsel did not confer with the People about missing items until June 21, 2023, the next court date. Moreover, the People contacted their NYPD liaison prior to certification, and they were advised that a request had been made for the command log and prisoner roster.
Defense counsel correctly notes that insofar as the People represented in their SCoC that heretofore missing items had not been in their actual control, where documents pertain to law enforcement, there is a presumption that the discovery is within the prosecution's possession, custody and control (see CPL § 245.20 [1][emphasis added]). However, appended to the People's opposition are several emails which document their continuous efforts through certification to identify and obtain, inter alia, arrest paperwork, roll call, ICard printout, body-worn camera footage for three police officers, memo books for three police officers, 911 Sprint report, arraignment card, DIRs, DMV abstract, and activity logs from their NYPD liaison.
We decline to find, as defense counsel suggests, that four items were missing from the prosecution's initial disclosure because they did not review the discovery received from the NYPD, nor is there any precedent or justification for defendant's argument that the Court examine "whether similar discovery violations have occurred in the past for this prosecutor, this District Attorney's Office, and/or this police witness or police department." On the contrary, the question of the People's due diligence will be based upon the record at bar and a consideration of whether the prosecution has articulated a good faith effort to comply with CPL § 245.20.
We find that the People have detailed their efforts to comply with their statutory disclosure obligations. It should be noted that while defense counsel did not endeavor to confer with the People until one month after their May 15th conference, the People disclosed the items one day after being advised about the missing disclosure.
The People's due diligence and compliance was established, and the CoC, filed on May 1, 2023, was valid.
The validity of the People's supplemental CoC ("SCoC") is not germane to the Court's analysis.
III. The CPL § 30.30 Calculation
In the case at bar, the People's 30.30 speedy trial calculation commenced on February 12, 2023, the day after defendant's arraignment. On May 1, 2023, the People filed their CoC (February 12, 2023 to May 1, 2023 = 78 days chargeable).
The validity of the People's SCoC is not germane to the Court's analysis and will not be considered.
Consequently, 78 days in total are chargeable to the People, and their readiness was declared within the time statutorily prescribed when the charge is a misdemeanor (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]; People v Flores, 79 Misc.3d 1239 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50834[U], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023] citing People v Galino, 38 N.Y.3d 199, 205 [Ct of App 2022]).
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion to invalidate the CoC and for dismissal of the misdemeanor charge on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 is DENIED.
This constitutes the opinion, decision, and the order of the Court.