Driving while impaired conviction reversed on speedy trial grounds

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has reversed a driving while impaired conviction on speedy trial grounds.

After a motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds was denied, defendant Friday Jacob pleaded guilty on July 8, 2021, to driving while ability impaired.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, reversed that decision.

Jacob was arrested on July 11, 2020, and charged with driving while intoxicated per se, driving while intoxicated, driving while ability impaired, and speeding.

Due to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s suspension of the speedy trial time limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the speedy trial clock commenced on Oct. 4, 2020.

On Oct. 28, 2020, the prosecutor filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and a statement of readiness (SOR) that, they conceded, did not contain a certification that the charges were facially sufficient.

On Nov. 9, 2020, the court issued an order that set a motion schedule for defendant to challenge the COC’s validity.

Under the schedule, the defense had to file his challenge to the COC by Dec. 1, 2020, and the People had to file their opposing papers by Dec. 15, 2020.

On Nov. 30, 2020, defendant filed a motion challenging the COC. The People filed their opposing papers on Jan. 13, 2021, 29 days after their response was due.

On Feb. 2, 2021, the judge denied the defense motion and scheduled the trial for June 1, 2021.

On March 24, 2021, the defense moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People had failed to validly state ready because they failed to certify the facial sufficiency of the charges.

After an oral argument on May 18, 2021, the judge denied the motion as untimely.

On appeal, the defense argued that the judge should have granted the speedy trial motion.

The prosecutor was required to be ready for trial within 90 days of Oct. 4, 2020.

“The People have the burden of ensuring that the record contains adequate explanations for adjournments and, here, the record is silent as to why they failed to file their opposition papers for 29 days,” the court wrote.

“We find that the People exceeded the 90-day period in which they had to be ready for trial. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed,” the panel ruled.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035