PEOPLE v. BARAHONA (2023)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, on November 23, 2020, defendant was charged in an accusatory instrument with common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), and was arraigned thereon. On January 14, 2021, the People filed an off-calendar statement of readiness (SoR) that did not include a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification of the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument. By notice of motion dated April 6, 2021, defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People's January 14, 2021 SoR was invalid because it lacked the CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification. By order dated June 17, 2021, the Criminal Court (Scott A. Dunn, J.) granted defendant's motion after finding 108 chargeable days, more than the 90 days allotted to the People to be ready for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [b]). The Criminal Court accepted defendant's argument that the People's January 14, 2021 SoR was invalid pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5-a).

On appeal, the People argue that CPL 30.30 (5-a) does not specify when the People must certify the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument and, therefore, the Criminal Court should have allowed the People to file a 5-a certification after the January 14, 2021 SoR, which certification would retroactively validate the SoR.

For the reasons stated in People v Ward (––– Misc 3d ––––, 2023 NY Slip Op –––– [appeal No. 2021-550 Q CR], decided herewith), because the People did not file a 5-a certification before the expiration of their statutory speedy trial time, the Criminal Court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

BUGGS, J.P., OTTLEY and VENTURA, JJ., concur.