From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Teachey

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County
Dec 28, 1998
181 Misc. 2d 988 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1998)

Opinion

December 28, 1998

Legal Aid Society, New York City (Harold Bahr of counsel), for defendant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Kimberly Ann Kinirons of counsel), for plaintiff.


OPINION OF THE COURT


On December 4, 1997, the people filed an accusatory instrument charging defendant with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated, N.Y. Veh. Traf. Law (V.T.L.) § 1192 (3); Operating a Motor Vehicle While Impaired, V.T.L. § 1192 (1); two counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, N.Y. Penal Law (P.L.) § 260.10 (1) and (2); and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree. P.L. § 220.03. Defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that the people were not ready for trial within the statutory time. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (C.P.L.) §§ 30.30 (1)(b), 170.30 (1) (e). For the reasons discussed below, the court denies the motion.

I. THE RECORD OF EVENTS AND THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

The people were required to declare their readiness for trial within 90 days, by March 4, 1998, absent excludable time. C.P.L. § 30.30 (1) (b). The parties agree that the people declared their readiness for trial on July 23, 1998, by filing a certificate of readiness with the court and communicating that readiness by mail to defendant. People v. Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331 (1985). Thus defendant has demonstrated a prima facie violation of the trial readiness rule. People v. Betancourt, 217 A.D.2d 462, 463 (1st Dep't 1995). The burden is now on the people to establish that sufficient time is excludable to render their declaration of readiness timely. People v. Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 77-78 (1995); People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859, 861. (1986);People v. Fields, 214 A.D.2d 332 (1st Dep't 1995).

According to the record of court action, defendant's motion to dismiss, and the people's response, the relevant events are as follows:

1) Following the filing of a misdemeanor complaint and defendant's arraignment, on December 4, 1997, the case was adjourned at the people's request to December 9, 1997, for them to corroborate the complaint with a supporting deposition and laboratory report. The people concede that the 5 days are chargeable to them.

2) On December 9, 1997, the people failed to produce the necessary corroboration to convert the complaint to an information. The case again was adjourned at their request and for that purpose, to January 27, 1998. The people concede that the 49 additional days are chargeable to them.

3) On January 27, 1998, as defendant concedes, the people converted the accusatory instrument. As defendant also concedes, he initiated his motion practice on that date. According to the record of court action, which defendant does not dispute, the court set a motion schedule requiring defendant's motions to be filed and served by February 10 and adjourning the case for the people's response and the court's decision on the motions March 10, 1998. Defendant concedes that this adjournment is not chargeable to the people. CPL § 30.30 (4) (a); People v. Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523, 527 (1985).

4) The record of court action reflects that on March 10 the case again was adjourned to April 27, 1998, for a response and decision on the motions. As the people point out and defendant's dated motions and the record of court action confirm, defendant failed to submit his motions until March 9, 1998. Thus the further adjournment from March 10 to April 27, 1998, for the people to respond and the court to decide the motions, is not chargeable to the people. CPL § 30.30 (4) (a); People v. Worley, 66 N.Y.2d at 527; People v. Reid, 214 A.D.2d 396 (1st Dep't 1995).

5) On April 27 the court granted hearings on defendant's motions to suppress evidence and adjourned the proceedings to June 17, 1998, for the hearings. This period, totalling 51 days, is not per se unreasonable and is not chargeable to the people. CPL § 30.30 (4) (a); People v. Roberts, 236 A.D.2d 233, 234 (1st Dep't 1997); People v. Greene, 223 A.D.2d 474 (1st Dep't 1996); People v. Green, 90 A.D.2d 705, 706 (1st Dep't 1982). See also People v. Silas, 233 A.D.2d 103 (1st Dep't 1996) (34 days reasonable); People v. Frazier, 171 Misc.2d 407, 412 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co. 1997) (48 days reasonable).

6) On June 17 the people stated they were not ready for the hearings and requested an adjournment to June 22, 1998. The people concede that this 5-day period is chargeable to them. Therefore, as of June 22, 1998, 59 days of the people's 90-day trial readiness time had elapsed.

7) On June 22 the hearings again were adjourned because the people were not ready to proceed. The court adjourned the proceedings to July 29, 1998. On July 23, 1998, on what would have been the 90th day, absent additional excludable time, the people declared their readiness for trial. That declaration "is presumed to be accurate and truthful." People v. Acosta, 249 A.D.2d 161, 674 N.Y.S.2d 2, 3 (1st Dep't 1998). Defendant does not insist to the contrary. People v. Stirrup, 91 N.Y.2d 434, 440 (1998).

Defendant does dispute that the people's declaration of readiness on July 23 stopped the trial readiness clock before the next adjournment date, July 29, 1998. The effect of that declaration is the critical issue before the court.

II. THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD

As a threshold issue, the court must determine whether the record presented permits disposition of the motion without a hearing. The record of proceedings must be adequate to enable the court to reach "an informed decision" whether time is excludable.People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201, 215-16 (1992). Since the critical period in dispute is the adjournment from June 22 to July 29, 1998, with the parties' consent, the court ordered the transcript of proceedings on June 22, adjourning the case to July 29, 1998. These minutes are the material evidence determinative of the extent to which this adjournment period is chargeable to the people.

III. THE PEOPLE'S DECLARATION OF READINESS TOLLED THEIR TRIAL READINESS TIME ON JULY 23, 1998.

According to the transcript of the proceedings of June 22, 1998, the people were unable to proceed with the scheduled hearing because they belatedly had discovered they needed an additional witness. As an accommodation to the defense, who had appeared in court for hearings twice in 5 days to no avail, the court inquired as to a preferred adjournment date. Defense counsel expressed a preference for "a Monday or a Wednesday" and specifically requested that the week of July 20 to 24 be excluded due to counsel's vacation. The court scheduled the hearing July 29, 1998, a Wednesday. The people did not specify the length of the adjournment they sought and did not participate in setting the adjournment date.

The pre-readiness delay on June 22, 1998, is chargeable to the people, absent defendant's "clearly expressed consent," People v. Liotta, 79 N.Y.2d 841, 843 (1992), or "acquiescence." People v. Garrett, 182 A.D.2d 496, 497 (1st Dep't 1992). Even a pre-readiness adjournment by the court sua sponte, not requested by the people, is chargeable to them. People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 615 (1986); People ex rel. Sykes v. Mitchell, 184 A.D.2d 466, 467-68 (1st Dep't 1992). This rule does not mean, however, that the people could not either toll the trial readiness period, by filing a notice of their readiness, or benefit from defendant's participation in setting the length of the adjournment.

Where the record is silent as to the length of an adjournment sought by the people, an ensuing notice of readiness "is the kind of record commitment to proceed which satisfies the People's duty to be ready for trial, and serves to toll the `speedy trial clock' from running for the remainder of that adjournment period." People v. Stirrup, 91 N.Y.2d at 440. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals explicitly refused to apply People v. Reid, 214 A.D.2d at 397. In Reid, the people occasioned an adjournment by their failure to appear, informing the court of their unreadiness by telephone. In their absence, the court charged the entire two week adjournment, although they had not requested an adjournment of any particular duration. Id. See People v. Sebak, 245 A.D.2d 242, 244 (1st Dep't 1997).

The appeal of Stirrup's co-defendant, People v. Anderson, 231 A.D.2d 459, 460 (1st Dep't 1996), vacated, 252 A.D.2d 399, 676 N.Y.S.2d 549, 552 (1st Dep't 1998), extended Reid beyond its particular circumstances: "Where the People answer not ready for trial, and the record is silent as to the length of adjournment sought by them, the entire period is chargeable to them despite the filing a certificate of readiness in the intervening period." That original Anderson decision would have overruled Sykes. Stirrup pulled back that broad extension of Reid. See People v. Anderson, 676 N.Y.S.2d at 551. Reid, in fact, explicitly distinguished its particular circumstances from the general rule of People ex rel. Sykes v. Mitchell, 184 A.D.2d at 468: the people are chargeable with pre-readiness delay occasioned by court scheduling only until they declare their readiness for trial. See People v. Chavis, 91 N.Y.2d 500, 506 (1998); People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 676, 678 (1993); People v. Anderson, 676 N YS.2d at 551; People v. Robinson, 251 A.D.2d 110, 675 N.Y.S.2d 26 (1st Dep't 1998); People v. Lindsey, 248 A.D.2d 729, 670 N.Y.S.2d 865, 866 (2d Dep't 1998). "Once a prosecutor announces readiness for trial, the operational effect of CPL § 30.30 is exhausted," and additional delay due to other factors is excludable. People ex rel. Sykes v. Mitchell, 184 A.D.2d at 468.See People v. Brothers, 50 N.Y.2d 413, 417 (1980). Thus the people's declaration of readiness on July 23, 1998, timely tolled the trial readiness period.

IV. DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY PARTICIPATED IN SETTING THE ADJOURNED DATE SO AS TO EXCLUDE JULY 20-24, 1998, FROM THE TRIAL READINESS TIME.

Moreover, to accommodate defense counsel's vacation from Monday, July 20, to Friday, July 24, a period in which the people's trial readiness time was due to expire, the court set the adjournment date at Wednesday, July 29, 1998. Defense counsel's stated preference for Mondays or Wednesdays does not constitute a "clearly expressed consent" to the adjournment.People v. Liotta, 79 N.Y.2d at 843. In contrast, his specific objection to any date between July 20 and July 24, which included four days, July 20 to July 23, when the people could have timely declared their readiness for trial in open court, does amount to sufficient participation in setting the adjournment date to toll the trial readiness clock from July 20 through July 24, 1998.See, e.g., People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d at 678; People v. Matthews, 227 A.D.2d 313, 314 (1st Dep't 1996); People v. Brown, 207 A.D.2d 556, 557 (2d Dep't 1994).

Defendant cannot first object to specific adjournment dates that would allow the people to declare their trial readiness timely in open court and then prohibit the people from making a valid out-of-court declaration of readiness on those dates, because the people's unreadiness necessitated the adjournment originally. Thus the period of July 20 through July 23, 1998, is excludable, rendering the people's statement of readiness effective on the 87th day of their trial readiness period.

Therefore the court denies defendant's motion to dismiss.


Summaries of

People v. Teachey

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County
Dec 28, 1998
181 Misc. 2d 988 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Teachey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD TEACHEY…

Court:Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

Date published: Dec 28, 1998

Citations

181 Misc. 2d 988 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1998)
696 N.Y.S.2d 625