Genesee County judge dismisses burglary charges on speedy trial grounds

A Genesee County Court judge has dismissed felony charges because of a speedy trial violation.

Gregory S. Cianci was charged with third-degree burglary, third-degree criminal mischief, both felonies, and petit larceny, a misdemeanor.

Cianci’s attorney, Lisa M. Kroemer, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for a violation of New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 30.30, which requires that the prosecution declare readiness for trial on a felony charge within six months of the commencement of the action.

A defendant seeking a speedy trial dismissal under the statute meets their initial burden by alleging only that the prosecution failed to declare readiness within the statutory time period, according to Judge Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini’s decision.

“The defendant has met his initial burden since he alleges that the People were not ready for trial within the statutory time period,” Cianfrini wrote.

The calculation to determine the speedy trial time limit starts at the date of arraignment, where a defendant is provided a notice to appear, not the date of arrest.

Cianci’s case commenced on May 16, 2024, when he was arraigned on an appearance ticket. The defense requested adjournments from Sept. 17, 2024, through Nov.19, 2024, totaling 63 days of excludable time, according to the decision.

To declare readiness for trial within the required time period the prosecution had to announce readiness by Jan. 14, Cianfrini wrote.

The prosecution filed a Statement of Readiness for Trial (SRT) and Certificate of Compliance (COC) on Jan. 10, 2025.

The arraignment on the indictment was held on January 28, where the defense objected to the prosecutor’s readiness for trial because Cianci’s lawyer had not been served with either the SRT or COC.

The prosecutor claimed that the SRT and COC were provided to defense counsel electronically. But the prosecutor did not provide any proof of electronic service on Jan. 10, 2025.

No affidavits of service were provided to establish proper service. The compliance reports attached to the COCs have no reference to the service of any SRT or COC to defense counsel, Cianfrini wrote.

“As this Court has stated previously in other cases, it is incumbent upon the People to have proof of service by some means. Simply uploading the SRT or COC into Digital Evidence Management System (DEMS) is insufficient without more,” Cianfrini wrote.

“The People were unable to even provide proof of the exchange of these specific documents through DEMS. The only evidence presented to this Court of the defense receipt of the SRT and COC was through an email dated Jan. 28, 2025, at 9:37 a.m., attached to the defendant’s unmarked exhibits to his omnibus motions,” she wrote.

The People failed to meet their burden that the service of such documents occurred on or before Jan. 14, 2025, she wrote.

“Accordingly, the People failed to timely serve the SRT and COC by Jan. 14, 2025. As a result, this defendant’s CPL Section 30.30 motion is granted and the indictment is hereby dismissed,” she wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035