People v King

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th And 13th Judicial Districts

Decided on February 20, 2026

2021-718 K CR

Present: : Chereé A. Buggs, J.P., Lisa S. Ottley, Joanne D. Quiñones, JJ

Appellate Advocates (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Elizabeth N. Warin, J.), rendered September 22, 2021, and from an amended judgment of that court (Adam D. Perlmutter, J.) rendered January 27, 2022. The judgment (appeal No. 2021-718 K CR) convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of common-law driving while intoxicated, and imposed sentence. The amended judgment (appeal No. 2022-231 K CR) resentenced defendant to three years' probation. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review an order of that court (Elizabeth N. Warin, J.), issued September 17, 2021, denying defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds. By decision and order of this court dated March 1, 2024, "the matter [was] remitted to the Criminal Court to report on the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial because the People failed to timely certify, pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5-a), that the charges in the accusatory instrument were facially sufficient, after affording the People the opportunity to respond to that branch of the motion, and after a hearing, if necessary" (People v King, 83 Misc 3d 29, 30 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024]). The appeals were held in abeyance in the interim. The Criminal Court (Keshia J. Espinal, J.) issued a "Decision and Order," dated October 28, 2024.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the order dated October 28, 2024 is vacated; and it is further,

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for the issuance of a report, forthwith, without any accompanying order, advising only whether defendant has made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing on the branch of his motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial because the People failed to timely certify, pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5-a), that the charges in the accusatory instrument were facially sufficient, after affording the People the opportunity to respond to that branch of the motion, and after a hearing, if necessary; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal shall continue to be held in abeyance pending receipt of the Criminal Court's report.

The decision and order of this court dated March 1, 2024 (People v King, 83 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [2024]) remitted the matter to the Criminal Court, Kings County, for the limited purpose of providing the People an opportunity to respond to the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial because the People had failed to timely certify that the charges in the accusatory instrument were facially sufficient pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5-a). Upon remittitur, the Criminal Court was only to report to this court whether defendant had made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing on that branch of defendant's motion. On October 28, 2024, the Criminal Court erroneously issued an order granting defendant's motion and dismissing the accusatory instrument (see People v Dennis, 148 AD3d 927, 928 [2017]). Such action exceeded the scope of our directive contained in the decision and order dated March 1, 2024.

Accordingly, the Criminal Court's order dated October 28, 2024 is vacated and the matter must again be remitted to the Criminal Court for the issuance of a report, forthwith, without any accompanying order, advising only whether defendant has made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing on the branch of his motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial because the People failed to timely certify, pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5-a), that the charges in the accusatory instrument were facially sufficient, after affording the People the opportunity to respond to that branch of the motion, and after a hearing, if necessary. There are no other matters to be considered by the court upon remittitur.

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

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: February 20, 2026