Opinion
11486 Ind. 4082/12
05-14-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Santo VALENZUELA, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven R. Berko of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathan Krois of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven R. Berko of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathan Krois of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J. at speedy trial motion; Abraham L. Clott, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered July 9, 2015, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of five years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's speedy trial motion. The court correctly ruled that the sole period at issue on appeal was excludable time under CPL 30.30(4)(b), because defense counsel was on trial in another case (see e.g. People v. Brown, 149 A.D.3d 584, 53 N.Y.S.3d 626 (1st Dept. 2017), lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1124, 64 N.Y.S.3d 674, 86 N.E.3d 566 (2017) ). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the colleague of defense counsel who appeared in court was available to try the case instead of the assigned attorney.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 (2007) ). The totality of the evidence supports the inference of defendant's accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00 ). There is no reasonable explanation for defendant's behavior except that he was an intentional participant in the crime, and not a spectator.
The court properly declined to permit defendant to introduce a portion of the grand jury testimony of a prosecution witness who was unavailable at trial, and there was no violation of defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. The probative value of this testimony depended on the resolution of a critical ambiguity that was never clarified during the grand jury proceeding. Accordingly, the court correctly determined that the testimony lacked "sufficient indicia of reliability" ( People v. Robinson, 89 N.Y.2d 648, 650, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575, 679 N.E.2d 1055 (1997) ). The prosecutor's "mere opportunity to examine" its witness before the Grand Jury did not establish reliability under the particular circumstances ( id. at 655, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575, 679 N.E.2d 1055 ). In any event, any error regarding the denial of defendant's request to introduce grand jury minutes was harmless. There is no reasonable possibility that introduction of these minutes would have affected the verdict.