PEOPLE v. AGUILAR (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce at CPL 30.30 motion, Lester B. Adler, J. at trial and sentence), rendered December 19, 2019, as amended December 23, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's CPL 30.30 speedy trial motion.  Notwithstanding the People's failure to produce him to court on prior dates, defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the People's November 28, 2018 certificate of readiness, which is presumed truthful and accurate, was illusory by demonstrating that it “did not accurately reflect the People's position” on that date (see People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392, 404, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45 [2016]).  Defendant's challenge to the People's readiness is premised on their failure to produce him from federal custody for the court dates that followed his detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the pendency of this case.  However, prior to declaring their readiness off-calendar on November 28, 2018, the People secured defendant's appearance for his next court date on January 15, 2019, by obtaining a writ of habeas corpus from the court to compel his production from federal custody, serving it on the relevant immigration authorities, and confirming with the facility where he was being housed that he would be produced on that date (see People v. Mucciolo, 104 A.D.2d 905, 906, 480 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2d Dept. 1984]).  While the People had answered not ready on the court date immediately preceding their statement of readiness on account of the assigned prosecutor's engagement in the trial of a separate matter, her trial had concluded by November 28, 2018.  Under these circumstances, any impediment that prevented the People from stating ready on defendant's prior court date had been removed by the time they filed their November 28, 2018 statement of readiness during the following adjournment period, at which point they had “done all that [was] required of them to bring the case to a point where it may be tried” (People v. England, 84 N.Y.2d 1, 4–5, 613 N.Y.S.2d 854, 636 N.E.2d 1387 [1994]).

The People's readiness is supported by the record, which includes the prosecutor's affirmation attesting to the People's November 28, 2018 readiness (see People v. Daniels, 36 A.D.3d 502, 502, 829 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 842, 840 N.Y.S.2d 768, 872 N.E.2d 881 [2007]), and documented proof of the People's efforts prior to filing their statement of readiness to ensure defendant's appearance for his next court date (see People v. Lugo, 161 A.D.2d 122, 122, 554 N.Y.S.2d 849 [1st Dept. 1990], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 860, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900 [1990]).  The validity of the readiness statement is underscored by the People's continued readiness on the January 15, 2019 court date, when defendant was produced (see People v. Ferguson, 204 A.D.3d 614, 616, 167 N.Y.S.3d 76 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1133, 172 N.Y.S.3d 850, 193 N.E.3d 515 [2022]).

Defendant did not make any specific assertions raising factual disputes that would require a hearing (see People v. Hatcher, 228 A.D.3d 565, 565, 212 N.Y.S.3d 83 [1st Dept. 2024]).