Opinion
CR-01406-19
11-09-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Lacey M. UTTER, Defendant.
For the People: Attorney Katherine Ehrlich, ADA, Fulton County District Attorney, Johnstown, New York 12095 For Defendant: Attorney Brian Toal, Esq., 57 East Fulton Street, Suite 216, Gloversville, New York 12078
For the People: Attorney Katherine Ehrlich, ADA, Fulton County District Attorney, Johnstown, New York 12095
For Defendant: Attorney Brian Toal, Esq., 57 East Fulton Street, Suite 216, Gloversville, New York 12078
Traci DiMezza, J.
DECISION In this violation of probation proceeding, defendant moves for an order directing discovery pursuant to newly enacted CPL § 245, which states "The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case " ( CPL § 245.20[1] [emphasis added] ).
CPL § 245 states: "When a defendant is in custody during the pendency of the criminal case, the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations within twenty calendar days after the defendant's arraignment on an indictment, superior court information, prosecutor's information, information, simplified information, misdemeanor complaint or felony complaint " ( CPL 245.10[1][a] [emphasis added] ).
While the New York State legislature appears to have remedied the notable exclusion of felony complaints, misdemeanor complaints, and simplified informations from the discovery mandates of the now-repealed CPL § 240 discovery statute, they declined to specifically expand discovery to include violations of probation within newly enacted CPL § 245.
A close examination of CPL § 245 illustrates no contradiction, modification, or application, of the newly enacted discovery mandates, to the un-repealed provisions of CPL Article 410. It remains widely recognized that proceedings upon violations of probation, conditional discharge and parole supervision, are summary proceedings, requiring only that defendant be afforded an opportunity to be heard, and imposes a significantly lower burden of proof upon the prosecution. (See People v. Jangrow , 34 A.D.3d 991, 823 N.Y.S.2d 627 ; see also People v. Vedder , 172 A.D.3d 1539, 100 N.Y.S.3d 742.)
Defendants motion for Court-ordered discovery is hereby denied.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.