THE PEOPLE, app, v. TOMMEY VARGAS, def-res

14-386. THE PEOPLE, app, v. TOMMEY VARGAS, def-res — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Order (John H. Wilson, J.), dated June 27, 2013, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument reinstated, and matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

14-386. THE PEOPLE, app, v. TOMMEY VARGAS, def-res — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Order (John H. Wilson, J.), dated June 27, 2013, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument reinstated, and matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings.

Criminal Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the accusatory instrument was improper. A post arraignment motion to dismiss an accusatory instrument “must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the [P]eople” (People v. Littles, 188 AD2d 255, 256 [2002], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). The failure to follow that procedure, intended to facilitate “full development of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal” (id. at 256), is “clearly error [warranting] reversal in and of itself” (People v. Dunlap, 216 AD2d 215, 217 [1995]). Nor can it be said, in light of the prosecutor’s objection, that the People waived the requirement that the motion be made in writing (see People v. Littles, 188 AD2d 255, 256 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). Indeed, the dismissal was summary in nature and the People were not prepared to respond to the argument that the supporting deposition of the Postal Inspector was not properly subscribed (see People v. Parker, 223 AD2d 179 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 927 [1996]). Nor were the issues clarified. In this regard, it was far from clear from the brief colloquy that preceded the court’s action, what particular subdivision of CPL 170.30(1) the court was relying on when it dismissed the accusatory instrument, since defendant also asserted that speedy trial time had expired.

THE PEOPLE, app, v. TOMMEY VARGAS, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal