People v. Disla ( 2022 )

People v Disla
2022 NY Slip Op 34787(U)September 20, 2022
County Court, Westchester County
Docket Number: Indictment No. 22-70534
Judge: George E. Fufidio
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK
-against- DECISION & ORDER
r- I"lt!tretmentNo.: 22-70,~34
AMEL Y DISLA,
JEIDY RODRIGUEZ,
RED PICHARDO and
F1lED ~
NICOLE BAEZ CRUZ SEP 2 0 2022
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
_Ji&,.
FUFIDIO, J.
I)efendant, JEIDY RODRIGUEZ, having been indicted for acting in concert with the
above named defendants on or about March 14, 2022 on one count of criminal possession of a
controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law§ 220.21 [1 ]); one count of criminal
possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1]) and unlawful
fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 270.25) has filed an
omnibus motion which consists of a Notice of Motion, an Affirmation in Support and a
Memorandum of Law. In response, the People have filed an Affirmation in Opposition together
with a Memorandum of Law. Upon consideration of these papers, the stenographic transcript of
the grand jury minutes this Court disposes of this motion as follows:
A. MOTION TO INSPECT AND THE GRAND JURY MINUTES
AND TO DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT
Defendant moves pursuant to CPL §§210.20(1)(b) and (c) to dismiss the indictment, or
counts thereof, on the grounds that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient
and that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning of CPL §210.35. The
Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceedings before the Gran<;! Jury.
Pursuant to CPL §190.65(1), an indictment must be supported by legally sufficient
evidence which establishes that the defendant committed the offenses charged. Legally
sufficient evidence is·competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish each and
every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof(CPL §70.10[1]);
People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 [1986]). "In the context of a grand jury proceeding, legal
sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable
doubt." People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 (1998); People v Ackies, 79 AD3d 1050 (2 nd Dept 2010).
In rendering a determination, "[t]he reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if
proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of each element of
the charged crimes and whether the grand jury could rationally have drawn the inference of
guilt." Bello, supra, quoting People v Boampong, 57 AD3d 794 (2 nd Dept 2008-- internal
quotations omitted). A review of the minutes reveals that the evidence presented, if accepted as
true, would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL
[* 1]
§210.30[2]). With respect to Defendant's claim that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective
within the meaning of CPL §210.35, a review of the minutes supports a finding that a quorum of
the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district
attorney instructed the Grand Jury on the law, that the grand jurors who voted to indict heard all
the "essential and critical evidence" (see People v Collier, 72 NY2d 298 [1988]; People v Julius,
300 AD2d 167 [l51 Dept 2002], lv den 99 NY2d 655 [2003]). The Grand Jury was properly
instructed (see People v Calbud, 49 NY2d 389 [1980] and People v. Valles, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]).
In making this determination, the Court does not find that release of such portions of the
Grand Jury minutes as have not already been disclosed pursuant to CPL Article 245 to the parties
was necessary to assist the Court.
B & C. DISCOVERY ORDER
Defendant's motion for discovery is granted to the extent provided for in Criminal
Procedure Law Article 245 and/or already provided by the People. If any items set forth in CPL
Article 245 have not already been provided to Defendant pursuant to that Article, said items are
to be provided forthwith. Any party is granted leave, if required, to apply for a Protective Order
in compliance with CPL Article 245, upon notice to the opposing party and any party affected by
said Protective Order. The People are directed to file a Certification of Compliance with CPL
Article 245 and the instant Order upon completion of their obligations thereunder, if they have
not already done so. The People's cross-motion for reciprocal discovery is likewise granted to
the extent provided for in Criminal Procedure Law Article 245, and/or already provided to the
People. The People are further reminded that any response to a demand for a bill of particulars
by Defendant_ shall adequately inform Defendant of the substance of the alleged conduct, and in
all respects comply with CPL Article 245 and §200.95, within 15 days of the date of the request.
Further, pursuant to Administrative Order 393/19, it is:
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for
the case, are required to make timely disclosure of information favorable to the defense as
required by Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972];
People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 [1981]; and their progeny under the United States and New
York State Constitutions and by Rule 3.8(b) of the New York State Rules of Professional
Conduct; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for
the case or, if the matter is not being prosecuted by the District Attorney, the prosecuting agency
and its assigned representatives, have a duty to learn of such favorable information that is known
to others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police, and are therefore
expected to confer with investigative and prosecutorial personnel who acted in the case and to
review all files which are directly related to the prosecution or investigation of this case. For
purposes of this Order, favorable information can include but is not limited to:
a) Information that impeaches the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness,
including
[* 2]
(i) benefits, promises, or inducements, express or tacit, made to a witness by a law
enforcement official or law enforcement victim services agency in connection With giving
testimony or cooperating in the case;
(ii) a witness's prior inconsistent statement, written or oral;
(iii) a witness's prior convictions and uncharged criminal conduct;
(iv) information that tends to sow that a witness has a motive to lie to inculpate the
defendant, or a bias against the defendant or in favor of the complainant or the prosecution; and
. (v) information that tends to show impairment of a witness's ability to perc.eive, recall, or
recount relevant events, including impairment resulting from mental or physical illness or
substance abuse;
b) Information that tends to ex cul pate, reduce the degree 9f an offense, or ~cupport a
potential defense to a ~harged offense; · ·
c) Informati?n that tends to mitigate the degree of the defendant's culpability as to a
charged offense, or to mitigate punishment;
d) Information that tends to undermine evidence of the defendant's identity as a
perpetrator of a charged crime, such as a non-identification of the defendant by a witness to a
charged crime or an identification or other evidence implicating another person in,a manner that
tends to cast doubt on the defendant's guilt; and
e) Information that could affect in the defendant's favor the ultim.ate decision on a
suppression motion; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District.Attorney and the.Assistant District Attorney ~esponsible for·
the case or any other agen{ prosecuting the case is hereby advised of his/her duty to disclose
favorable information whether or not such information is recorded in tangible form and
1
irrespective of whether the prosecutor credits the information; and it is further
ORDERED, that the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney responsible for
the case or any other agent responsible for the prosecution of the case is dire~ted that favorable
information must be timely disclosed in accordance withthe United States and Ne\v York State
constitµtional standards, as well as CPL Article 245. Disclosures are presumptively "timely" if
they are completed no later than 30 days before commencement of trial in a felony case and 15
days before commencement of trial in a misdemeanor case. Records of a judgment of conviction
or a pending crimin~l action ordinarily are discoverable within the time frame provided in CPL
Article 245. Disclosures that pertain to a suppression hearing are presumptively "timely" if they
are made no later than 15 days before the scheduled hearing date; and it is further
1
ORDERED, that the District Attor~ey and the Assistant District Attorney ~esponsible for
the case or any other agent responsible for the prosecution of the case is hereby reininded and
informed that his/her obligation to disclose is a continuing one; and it further
[* 3]
ORDERED, notwithstanding the foregoing, that a prosecutor may apply for a protective
order, which may be issued for good cause, and CPL Article 245 shall be deemed to apply, with
respect to disclosures required under this Order. Moreover, the prosecutor may request a ruling
from the court on the need for disclosure. Only willful and deliberate conduct will constitute a
violation of this Order or be eligible to result in personal sanctions against the prosecutor; and it
is further
ORDERED, that counsel for the defendant is required to:
a) confer with the defendant about his/her case and is required to keep the defendant
informed about all significant developments in this case_; and
b) timely communicate any and all plea offers to the defendant and to provide .him/her
with reasonable advice about the advantages and disadvantages of any such plea offer including
the potential sentencing ranges that apply in the case;
c) where applicable, insure the defendant receives competent advise concerning
immigration consequences as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010];
d) perform a reasonable investigation of the facts and the law pertinent to the case
(including, as applicable, visiting the scene, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing pertinent
materials, consulting experts, inspecting exhibits, reviewing all discovery materials obtained
from the prosecution, researching legal issues, etc.) or, as appropriate, making a reasonable
professional judgment not to investigate a particular matter;
e) comply with the requirements of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct
regarding conflicts of interest, and when appropriate, timely notify the court of a possible
conflict so that an inquiry may be undertaken or a ruling made;
f) possess or acquire a reasonable knowledge and familiarity with criminal procedural
and evidentiary law to ensure constitutionally effective representation in the case; and
g) in accordance with statute, provide notices as specified in CPL sections 250.10, 250.20
and 250.30 (e.g., a demand, intent to introduce the evidence, etc.) as to the defendant's demand
for exculpatory material, the People have acknowledged their continuing duty to disclose
exculpatory material at the earliest possible date upon its discovery (see, Brady v Maryland, 373
US 83 [1963]; Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]). In the event that the People are, or
become, aware of any material which is arguably exculpatory and they are not willing to consent
to its disclosure to the defendant, they are directed to immediately disclose such material to the
court to permit an in camera inspection and determination as to whether the material must be
disclosed to the defendant.
D. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
The Court grants the Defendant's motion solely to the extent that Mapp and Dunaway
hearings are directed to be held prior to trial to determine the propriety of any search resulting in
the seizure of property (see, Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961]) and whether any evidence was
[* 4]
obtained in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see, Dunaway v New York, 442
us 200 [1979]).
E. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS
The Court grants the Defendant's motion to the extent that a Huntley hearing shall be
held prior to trial to determine whether any statements allegedly made by the Defendant, which
have been noticed by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 (l)(a) were involuntarily made by the
Defendant within the meaning of CPL 60.45 (see CPL 710.20 (3); CPL 710.60 [3][b]; People v
Weaver, 49 NY2d 1012 [1980]), obtained in violation of Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to
counsel, and/or obtained in vioiation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (see Dunaway
v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]).
· Regarding the Defendant's motion to preclude any unnoticed statements, his motion is
denied as premature. If that issue becomes ripe, the People will have to show compliance with
CPL 710.30, if, in fact, they intend to use any previously unnoticed stateme~t that would have
required prior notice.
I. MOTION FOR SANDOVALIVENTIMIGLIAIMOLINEUXHEARING
Granted, solely to the extent that Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux hearings, as the case may
be, shall be held immediately prior to trial; as follows:
I. Pursuant to CPL §245.20, the People must notify the Defendant, not less than
fifteen days prior to the first scheduled date for trial, of all specific instances of Defendant's
uncharged misconduct and criminal acts of which the People have knowledge and which the
People intend to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the Defendant, or as ·
substantive proof of any material issue in the case, designating, as the case may be for each act or
acts, the intended use (impeachment or substantive proof) for which the act or acts will be offered;
and
II. Defendant, at the ordered hearing, must then sustain his burden of informing the
Court of the prior misconduct which might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf
(see, People v. Malphurs, 111 AD2d 266 [2 nd Dept. 1985]).
F. MOTION RESERVING THE RIGHT TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
Defendant's motion reserving the right to file additional motions is denied. Should the
Defendant file any other motions that were not raised in his Omnibus motion, then they will need
to be in compliance with CPL 255.20(3). ·
The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
September ~O , 2022
[* 5]
To:
HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH
District Attorney, Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
BY:
. RACHEL EHRHARDT, ESQ
Assistant District Attorney
CONOR McNAMARA, ESQ.
Attorney for the Defendant
299Broadway, Suite 1400
New York, New York 10007
[* 6]