NY appeals court remits case over speedy trial dispute

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, has sent a case back to a lower court to decide a speedy trial issue.

Defendant Sir Charles Mosley IV was convicted in March 2024, before state Supreme Court Justice Victoria M. Argento, of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and resisting arrest.

Mosley appealed to the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, which reserved decision and sent the case back to Supreme Court.

Mosley’s appellate attorney, Aaron Friedman, argued that Argento should have granted a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds.

Friedman contends that, at the time the prosecutor filed their initial certificate of compliance (COC) they had not provided him with discoverable material, and that the prosecution’s statement of readiness for trial therefore was not valid.

“We conclude that the court failed to apply the correct standard in determining defendant’s motion,” the Fourth Department ruled.

When a defendant, such as Mosley, is charged with a felony, the prosecutor must announce readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of the action.

A statement of readiness made at a time when the prosecutor is not actually ready is insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock, the Fourth Department wrote.

And a statement of readiness must include a certification of good faith compliance with disclosure requirements.

A COC must state that “after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery,” according to the decision.

“The prosecution will not be deemed ready for trial … until it has filed a ‘proper’ COC,” the court wrote.

In evaluating the propriety of a COC, the key question is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to find material and information subject to discovery, the court wrote.

Good faith is required, but it’s not sufficient on its own, and cannot cure a lack of diligence, the court wrote.

The court noted that, in a motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence, and improperly filed a COC, the prosecutor bears the burden of establishing that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC, “despite a belated or missing disclosure.”

Where the prosecution fails to meet their burden, the COC should be deemed improper, the readiness statement stricken as illusory, and, when the time chargeable to the prosecution exceeds the statutory period of six months, the case dismissed, according to the decision.

The panel agreed with Friedman’s contention that the court erred in concluding that the prosecutor’s initial COC was proper solely on the basis that the prosecution acted in good faith with respect to their discovery obligations.

“The court was required to determine whether the People satisfied their burden of establishing that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to satisfy their obligations … at the time they filed their initial COC,” the panel wrote.

The court ruled that Argento failed to consider whether the prosecution met that burden.

“We hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to make that determination, and, if appropriate, to determine whether the statement of readiness was valid, and whether the People were ready within the requisite time period.”

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035