Opinion
No. CR-041579-23KN
03-25-2024
The People of the State of New York v. Juan Brandon Gutirrez Morales, Defendant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Dan Hansen, Jr., Assistant District Attorney. Brooklyn Defender Services, Emani Pollard, Esq., of counsel for the Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Dan Hansen, Jr., Assistant District Attorney.
Brooklyn Defender Services, Emani Pollard, Esq., of counsel for the Defendant.
Patrick Hayes Torres, J.
On November 12, 2023, defendant was arraigned and charged with multiple violations of Vehicle and Traffic Laws including Vehicle and Traffic Law1192 (3), Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs. The People now seek to alter the time period of discovery under §245.70(2) upon a showing of good cause and to deem the People ready pursuant to CPL §245.50(3) and §30.30.
For the reasons set forth below, the People's motion to alter the time period for discovery pursuant to 245.70(2) is denied.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 12, 2023, the defendant was arraigned and charged with multiple violations of Vehicle and Traffic Laws including Vehicle and Traffic Law1192 (3), Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs. Since the top count charged in the information was an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail the People were required to be ready for trial within 90 days. CPL § 1193(1)(b)(i); CPL § 30.30(1)(a) .
On February 9, 2024, the People served and filed on the 89th day of speedy trial off calendar, their COC and SOR, together with mandatory discovery materials.
On February 13, 2024, during the scheduled court appearance the People announced they served and filed their COC/SOR on February 9, 2024. The defense counsel alerted the People that some calibration material was missing and needed more time to evaluate the discovery.
That same day the People filed the instant motion, 3 days beyond the speedy trial time, requesting the court to modify the time period for discovery upon a showing of good cause under CPL 245.70(2) and to deem the People ready pursuant to CPL §245.50(3) and §30.30.
The defendant on March 13, 2024, filed their opposition.
ALTER THE TIME PERIOD OF DISCOVERY UNDER §245.70(2)
The People sought relief from their discovery for a slew of missing discovery. The People in their affirmation sought relief from their discovery obligation for the OCME Litigation package since they requested this package previously and have not received the said package. The People neglected to mention when they order this package from OCME and the dates of their effort to follow-up with OCME for the litigation package.
In addition, the People sought relief for the following items, AMBULANCE CARE REPORT; Z FINEST; TOWING RECEIPT; INVENTORY REPORT; VEHICLE REPORT; MEDICAL TREATMENT OF PRISONER; DAT INVESTIGATION FORM; WINQ; PROPERTY CLERK INVOICES; and ACTIVITY LOGS FOR 6 OFFICERS. All of the listed items were from the NYPD, which are deemed to be in the possession of the People under COL 245.20(2).
Here the People provided a little more information by stating that the People made request by contacting the expeditors at the Office of the District Attorney who in turn made multiple requests to NYPD for the listed items above. However, the People affirmation suffered from the same condition as the OCME request. The People in their affirmation described Their efforts in general terms. The People failed to provide dates when these efforts were made and detail the response from NYPD as to the delay in providing the standard items.
Lastly the People sought relief from the Ambulance Care Report. The People stated that the Court approved a subpoena for the Ambulance Care Report on January 24, 2024. The People request 60 days to obtain all the above material.
Pursuant to CPL 245.70(2) "upon a motion of a party..., the court may alter the time periods for discovery imposed by this article upon a showing of good cause." In evaluating a good cause application such as an extension of time the People should provide the Court the steps taken to obtain the missing material, explain how their diligent and reasonable inquiries were unsuccessful in obtaining the material, and a reasonable expectation in acquiring the missing material, See People v. Adrovic 69 Misc.3d 563 (Crim Ct. Kings Cty. 2020).
Here, the People's application failed to make a showing of good cause. A good portion of the missing items listed were standard material in the possession of the police department. The people, however, neglected to detail the steps they took to obtain the missing discovery such as dates and time when they allegedly made efforts to obtain the missing discovery as well as explain how their diligent and reasonable inquiries were unsuccessful in obtaining the missing discovery. The People made general assertions of their good faith efforts, but their assertions lacked dates, times, who they contacted and an explanation for the delay. Thus, the People could not avail themselves to 245.70(2). See People v Bautista, 67 Misc.3d 279 (Crim. Ct., NY County, 2020)
Moreover, the People filed their COC on February 9, 2024, the 89th day of their speedy trial time. The Court cannot overlook the fact that the People filed the instant motion on February 13, 2024, 3 days after filing their COC, which would have been the 93rd day of speedy trial. Given the amount of discovery still outstanding from various entities including NYPD would give the appearance that the People were camouflaging their failure to complete their obligation under CPL 245 by requesting an alteration of discovery time under CPL 245.70(2). Cf People v McGee, 78 Misc.3d 1229 (A) (Crim Ct., Kings County 2023)
The court also denies the branch of the People's motion seeking a determination of their readiness under CPL § 30.30. That issue is not yet ripe as it is an issue to be determined by the court tasked with deciding any speedy trial motion that may be raised by the defendant in the future. Similarly, the court declines to make a ruling on the issues raised by the defendant regarding the validity of the People's certificate of compliance. Any challenges to the People's certification of discovery compliance must be made in a separate motion.
The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.