| People v Ricart |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05922 [153 AD3d 421] |
| August 1, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Domingo Ricart, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), forappellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Oliver McDonald of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J. at speedy trial motion;Ruth Pickholz, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered October 7, 2014, convicting defendant ofattempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to anaggregate term of 15 years, reversed, on the law, defendant's CPL 30.30 motion granted, and theindictment dismissed.
The People were required to be ready for trial within 183 days after the commencement ofthe action. The motion court denied defendant's 30.30 motion, finding that the People werechargeable with 181 days. On appeal, the People concede that they should have been chargedwith 12 additional days that, if added to the total charged by the court, would require dismissal.The People argue that the judgment should nevertheless be affirmed because the courtovercharged them by including periods that should have been excluded.
The motion court properly determined that the 17 disputed days between August 5, 2013 toSeptember 17, 2013 were chargeable to the People. The motion court also properly determinedthat 13 days between July 23 and August 5, 2013 were chargeable to the People, as conceded bythe People below. When these days are added to those the People concede on appeal, the totalexceeds the People's speedy trial time, regardless of the other disputed periods.
Pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (g), periods of delay caused by "exceptional circumstances" areexcludable from the time charged to the People; the People have the burden of proving theexistence of an exceptional circumstance (see People v Zirpola, 57 NY2d 706 [1982]).CPL 30.30 (4) (g) (i) specifically makes excludable a continuance "granted because of theunavailability of evidence material to the [P]eople's case, when the district attorney has exerciseddue diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that suchevidence will become available in a reasonable period." While the unavailability of a witnessmay be an exceptional circumstance within the contemplation of the statute, the People arerequired to demonstrate that they "attempted with due diligence to make the witness available"(Zirpola, 57 NY2d at 708). Due diligence requires that the People "undertake 'credible,vigorous activity' to make the witness available" (People v Figaro, 245 AD2d 300, 300[2d Dept 1997], quoting People v Washington, 43 NY2d 772, 774 [1977]).
As the People concede, the mere fact that a necessary witness plans to go on a vacation doesnot relieve them of their speedy trial obligation (see People v Boyd, 189 AD2d 433, 437[1st Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 714 [1993] ["the absence from the country of awitness . . . during this popular vacation month (of June) can hardly be regarded asexceptional"]; People v Thomas, 210 AD2d 736, 737-738 [3d Dept 1994] ["that the casewas adjourned to accommodate the witness's vacation schedule . . . does notconstitute an 'exceptional circumstance' "]; see also People v Allard, 128 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2d Dept 2015],affd 28 NY3d 41 [2016]). "[I]t is the responsibility of the People to be cognizant of theprogress of a particular case" (People vGonzalez, 136 AD3d 581, 583 [1st Dept 2016] [internal quotation marksomitted]).
[*2] The court properly determined thatthe People failed to exercise the necessary due diligence. The People knew that their cooperativewitness was planning a vacation to the Dominican Republic, yet they failed to call him or tootherwise secure his presence before he left the country. The prosecutor admitted that althoughlearning of the witness's proposed vacation plans on July 25, 2013, and being specifically askedby the witness to contact him the next day to discuss the trial schedule and his proposed vacation,no one from the District Attorney's office tried to contact the witness until July 30, 2013, atwhich time they learned he had already left on vacation. Although the witness indicated awillingness to work with the prosecutor on scheduling his vacation and had not yet bought histicket to the Dominican Republic, the prosecutor never subpoenaed the witness, sought a materialwitness order, or even communicated with him prior to his departure.
The People do not seriously dispute the proposition that their witness's vacation plans do notrelieve them of their speedy trial obligations. Instead, they argue that because the prosecutorlearned "sometime" before the July 30, 2013 trial date that the defense was going to request anadjournment, the July 30, 2013 date was not firm and the People therefore were not required toexercise due diligence to secure the witness's presence. Accepting the People's reasoning, thedissent excludes the entirety of the period from July 30, 2013 through August 22, 2013.
We reject the People's argument. The People do not dispute that they were aware of thewitness's vacation before the adjourn date and that they did nothing to prevent it or to work withthe witness to schedule the vacation as he suggested. Under the People's interpretation, theyshould be permitted to turn a blind eye to a witness's proposed vacation, and then, once thewitness has left the country, assert that the time was excludable as an "exceptional circumstance."This is gamesmanship we surely ought not to endorse.
The People's contention that the defense requested a one-week adjournment on July 30, 2013due to the unavailability of defense witness is not borne out by the record. The record shows thaton that date the prosecutor suggested that the case be adjourned for a week in order toaccommodate a defense witness. The defense clarified, however, that it "[did not] have awitness," and that it "was actually the prosecution's witness who was not available until the nextweek." Under these circumstances, the seven days from July 30, 2013 through August 5, 2013were properly chargeable to the People.[FN*]
We accordingly find that the prosecutor failed to exercise the requisite due diligence, and thatthe period between July 23 and August 22, 2013 (i.e., the witness's vacation) was not excludableas an exceptional circumstance. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, Moskowitz and Kapnick,JJ.
Friedman, J.P., and Webber, J., dissent in a memorandum by Webber, J., as follows: Irespectfully dissent. In my opinion, the motion court properly denied defendant's speedy trialmotion.
In this case, the People were required to be ready for trial within 183 days after thecommencement of the action. The motion court denied defendant's 30.30 motion, finding that thePeople were chargeable with 181 days. On appeal, the People concede that they should have beencharged with additional days that, if added to the total charged by the court, would requiredismissal. The People argue, and I agree, that the judgment should nevertheless be affirmedbecause the court overcharged them by including periods that should have been excluded.
This Court has the authority to review the calculations presented to the motion court and todecide whether the court's calculations and determinations were correct (see People v Mena, 29 AD3d 349[1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 792 [2006]; see also People v Salgado, 27 AD3d 71 [1st Dept 2006], lvdenied 6 NY3d 838 [2006]). In doing so, I find that while there [*3]were errors in calculation, defendant's motion pursuant to CPL30.30 was properly denied.
On October 11, 2012, the People stated that they were not ready to proceed because thearresting officer was unavailable. They requested the case be adjourned to October 16, 2012.Defense counsel indicated that October 16, 2012 was inconvenient and requested that the case beadjourned to November 1, 2012.
Hurricane Sandy struck the New York Metropolitan area on or about October 29, 2012. As aresult, all courts were closed from October 29, 2012 through November 5, 2012. All casesappearing on the calendar during this period were adjourned. The instant case wasadministratively adjourned to November 20, 2012. While the motion court correctly excluded theperiod after October 29, 2012, as a delay due to an exceptional circumstance, it charged thePeople from October 11, 2012 to October 29, 2012, a total of 18 days. Clearly, the People shouldonly have been charged from October 11, 2012 to October 16, 2012. Thus, 13 days should havebeen excluded.
In computing the time within which the People must be ready for trial, the court mustexclude "the period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court at the request of,or with the consent of, the defendant or his counsel" (CPL 30.30 [4] [b]). On October 11, 2012,the People specifically requested October 16, 2012. It was defendant's request that the case beadjourned to November 1, 2012. Thus defense counsel's consent was "clearly expressed"(People v Smith, 82 NY2d 676, 678 [1993]; CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; see People v Barden, 27 NY3d550, 554-556 [2016]). Defense counsel actively participated in setting the adjourn date,sought a date longer than the date requested for his convenience, and actually requested theselected date (see e.g. People vDavis, 80 AD3d 494, 495 [1st Dept 2011]; People v Matthews, 227 AD2d 313[1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 989 [1996]).
The motion court also improperly charged the People 13 days for the time period of July 23,2013 to August 5, 2013. The record reflects that on July 23, 2013, the People stated that theywere not ready to proceed to trial and requested a one week adjournment. The case wasadjourned to July 30, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the People stated that they were ready to proceedto trial. It was noted by the parties that there was a witness[FN1] who would be potentially unavailable due to ascheduled vacation if the case were immediately sent out to trial. When asked by the court if thecase should be adjourned to a date the following week to accommodate this potential witness,defense counsel acquiesced, stating, "[Y]es." The case was then adjourned to August 5,2013.
While defendant argues that the defense neither consented to, nor requested the adjournmentfor purposes of accommodating a potential witness, they do not dispute that on July 30, 2013, thePeople stated that they were ready to proceed to trial. Given the statement of readiness by thePeople, they should not have been charged any time and this additional six day period shouldhave been excluded.
Finally, I find that the motion court improperly included the period from August 5, 2013 toAugust 22, 2013, a total of 17 days. This period should have been excluded pursuant to CPL30.30 (4) (g), due to the unavailability of a necessary witness. The People demonstrated that theyexercised due diligence to make the witness available, in that they made credible and reasonableattempts to secure the witness's presence (see People v Carpenito, 199 AD2d 522 [2dDept 1993]).
On July 25, 2013, in anticipation of the July 30, 2013 trial date, the witness was contacted.At that time he was told that although the case was set for July 30, 2013, it would probably notproceed on that date due to the unavailability of a potential defense witness. The witnessindicated that he had tentative travel plans to visit family in the Dominican Republic. He did notstate the exact dates of travel. As the People were unaware of the new trial date, he requested thathe be contacted as to the new date. Following the July 30, 2013 trial date, it was [*4]learned that the witness had traveled to the Dominican Republicand would not be returning until August 22, 2013. The People learned this through conversationswith the complaining witness and family members.
While certainly the witness should have been asked as to his travel schedule and his availabledates, the failure to inquire does not mean that the People did not exercise due diligence. ThePeople had been in contact with the witness days before. They were aware that the witness wasstill willing to testify at trial. They knew he was planning a vacation, but did not know his exacttravel plans. This was not the situation where the People had lost contact with the witness orlearned that the witness was no longer cooperating (see People v Figaro, 245 AD2d 300[2d Dept 1997]; cf. People v Khan, 146 AD2d 806 [2d Dept 1989], lv denied 73NY2d 1021 [1989]).
There is no legal support for the argument, as set forth by the majority, that the failure of thePeople to subpoena the witness, obtain a material witness order or apparently to direct hisimmediate return from the Dominican Republic constituted a failure on their part to exercise duediligence. Further, contrary to the majority's assertion, this finding of due diligence is notpermitting the People to turn a blind eye to a witness's proposed vacation or condoning"gamesmanship."
However, even assuming the majority is correct and the People did not establish duediligence in securing the presence of the witness, the inclusion of this period is academic as thePeople would still be charged with less than the applicable 183 days.[FN2]
Footnote *:The dissent's calculation of 177days under this scenario does not take into account the six additional days from July 30, 2013through August 5, 2013.
Footnote 1:The People stated that it was nottheir intent to call this individual as a prosecution witness. The defense stated that if the Peopledid not call the individual as a witness they may "possibly" do so.
Footnote 2:If the 17 day period from August5, 2013 to August 22, 2013 were excluded, the People would be charged 160 days. If it wereincluded, the People would be charged 177 days.