205 A.D.3d 524
N.Y. App. Div.2022Background
- Defendant David Torres was convicted after trial of attempted murder (2nd degree), first-degree assault, and third-degree weapon possession; sentenced to an aggregate 16-year term as a second violent felony offender. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
- Defendant filed multiple CPL 30.30 speedy-trial motions; the court and Appellate Division found only 175 days chargeable toward the speedy-trial clock.
- Disputed time periods included an adjournment from June 18 to July 24, 2019 (court counted only through July 2) and the December 12, 2019 to January 8, 2020 period encompassing the January 1, 2020 effective date of new discovery laws.
- On June 18 the People stated readiness for trial on July 2; the court was unavailable on that date, and the calendar was pushed to July 24. Defendant argued the People effectively sought July 23 because of anticipated unavailability July 8–22.
- Defendant challenged the People’s compliance with the new CPL 245 discovery regime when it became effective January 1, 2020; the court found prior defense consent to adjournments and later compliance with protective-order rulings justified excluding the contested periods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 18–July 24, 2019 adjournment should be charged to the People | The People were ready for July 2; the court’s unavailability—not People’s unreadiness—caused delay | The People’s request for July 2 was effectively a request for July 23 (due to unavailability July 8–22), so the full period should be charged to the People | Issue unpreserved; alternatively, time properly excluded: People were ready for July 2, court unavailability prompted later adjournment, defendant failed to show post-readiness delay should be charged to People |
| Whether Dec 12, 2019–Jan 8, 2020 (straddling Jan 1 discovery-law effective date) is chargeable | Period excludable because the adjournment was at defendant’s request/with his consent | People did not comply with the new discovery law immediately on Jan 1, so delay should be charged | Defendant only preserved challenge to Jan 1–8; whole period properly excluded because adjournment was with defendant’s consent |
| Whether Jan 8–14, 2020 is chargeable given an initial certificate filed before a protective-order ruling | After the court ruled and People filed a corrected certificate and complied with the order, the ensuing delay is a reasonable pretrial-motions delay | Initial certificate was improper (filed before ruling), so time should be chargeable | Jan 8–14 excludable as reasonable delay resulting from pretrial motions; the second certificate reflected compliance and no bad faith shown |
| Whether the speedy-trial motions warranted reversal | Only 175 days were chargeable; motions should be denied | Defendant argued violations required reversal or dismissal | Motions properly denied; conviction and sentence unanimously affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Newland, 138 A.D.3d 611 (App. Div. 2016) (preservation required for appellate speedy-trial challenges)
- People v Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392 (2016) (standards for charging post-readiness adjournments to the People)
- People v England, 84 N.Y.2d 1 (1994) (readiness must not be illusory for speedy-trial purposes)
- Matter of People ex rel. LaBrew v Vance, 192 A.D.3d 645 (App. Div. 2021) (adjournments consented to by defendant are excludable despite intervening discovery-law changes)
- Matter of People ex rel. Farbman v Brann, 197 A.D.3d 1054 (App. Div. 2021) (delays attributable to pretrial motions are excludable as reasonable periods)