People v Howell

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on May 11, 2026

Docket No. CR-032810-25BX

David L. Goodwin, J.

Pending is the defense's counseled motion to dismiss. Upon review of the parties' filings and the record of proceedings thus far, it is hereby ordered that the motion to dismiss is denied.

The only dismissal ground raised is the People's alleged failure to declare ready before the ninety-day statutory speedy trial deadline under C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b) had expired. However, the People declared ready on March 4, 2026. If this case commenced on December 4, 2025, see Defense's Mot. ¶ 9, March 4 would be (as the People correctly observe, see People's Resp. at 1) ninety days later, just within the deadline. Howell calculates ninety-two days instead, see Defense's Mot. ¶ 13, but appears to be (1) including December 4 itself in the tally when it should instead be day zero, and (2) double-counting January 20.

Because the defense has not sufficiently alleged that the People were not ready within the statutory period, the burden does not shift to the People to otherwise defend their readiness on the record. See People v. Labate, 42 NY3d 184, 190 (2024). The People nevertheless address a potential conversion issue flagged originally on the day this motion schedule was set. See People's Resp. at 2. Since that issue was not ultimately raised in the defense's counseled motion, it need not be resolved, as it is the defense's choice to exclude the issue from the motion. See Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7, 9-10 (2025) (per curiam) (discussing party presentation principle); Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 519 (2009) (same); see also C.P.L. § 170.30(3); People v. Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 122 (2003) (observing that conversion issues are forfeitable and waivable).

The People also flag that they charged the wrong subsection of criminal contempt, P.L. § 215.50(1) , as they intended to charge (and alleged facts consistent with) § 215.50(3) . Amendments to the nonfactual parts of an accusatory instrument are generally permissible. See C.P.L. §§ 100.45(3), 170.35(1)(a); People v. Hardy, 35 NY3d 466, 476 (2020); People v. Husain, 56 Misc 3d 73, 74-75 (App. Term, 2d, 11th, & 13th Jud. Dists. 2017). Because the People raised this issue in their response, and the defense did not reply, the amendment issue should be definitively resolved on the record during the next in-court appearance.

The defense is ordered to file its reciprocal certificate of compliance within 15 days of [*2]this order. As defense counsel confirmed by email that no hearings will be sought in this matter, the case should be adjourned for trial.

Dated: May 11, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court