Opinion
No. 570481/19
12-21-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alex Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (George A. Grasso, J., at speedy trial motion; Jeffrey M. Zimmerman, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered April 24, 2019, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired by alcohol, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (George A. Grasso, J., at speedy trial motion; Jeffrey M. Zimmerman, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered April 24, 2019, affirmed.
The recent amendments to CPL 30.30, which extended statutory speedy trial limitations to traffic infractions charged in the same accusatory instrument with certain other offenses (see CPL 30.30[1][e]), are not retroactive, and do not apply to criminal actions commenced prior to the January 1, 2020 effective date of the legislation (see L 2019, ch 59, part KKK, § 1), such as this 2017 action (see People v Galindo, 38 N.Y.3d 199 [2022]; People v Hall, 210 A.D.3d 482, 483 [2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1078 [2023]; People v Lara-Medina, 195 A.D.3d 542 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 993 [2021]). We decline defendant's invitation to vacate his conviction in the interest of justice.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that defendant operated a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by the consumption of alcohol (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1]). Police observed defendant behind the steering wheel of a minivan that was "standing" in a bus stop at 4:20 a.m., away from the curb, with the keys in the ignition and the engine running (see People v Alamo, 34 N.Y.2d 453 [1974]). The officer's testimony also demonstrated that defendant was "slumped over" and "not moving," and that when the officer finally woke him by tapping on the window, defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant was also observed to be unsteady on his feet and disoriented, and he placed his cell phone in a cup that contained a "brown" liquid that smelled like alcohol. Furthermore, the Intoxilyzer breath test device administered at the precinct measured defendant's blood alcohol content at.103 percent. This evidence supported the conclusion that defendant operated the vehicle while impaired (see People v Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419, 426-428 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 U.S. 901 [1980]; People v Taylor, 104 A.D.3d 603 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 947 [2013]).
Any discrepancies and inconsistencies in the arresting officer's testimony or challenges to his credibility based on an unrelated case were fully explored by defense counsel on cross-examination and we find no basis to disturb the court's resolution of the issues (see People v Jones, 79 A.D.3d 1073, 1074 [2010], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 954 [2011]).