People v. Allard, 28 N.Y.3d 43 (2016)
When a trial court grants a hearing on a defendant’s speedy trial claim, the defendant preserves their arguments by raising them at the hearing, even if they did not specifically address the People’s claimed exclusions in a reply to the prosecution’s opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of preserving speedy trial claims under CPL 30.30 when a hearing is granted. The court held that a defendant’s failure to file a reply brief addressing the People’s exclusions to the speedy trial calculation does not automatically forfeit their right to challenge those exclusions, provided the defendant raises those challenges during a hearing on the motion. This ruling clarifies the interplay between CPL 210.45, which governs motions to dismiss indictments and requires a hearing if the People don’t conclusively refute a motion with documentary evidence, and the established procedure for preserving speedy trial arguments outlined in prior case law. The court reasoned that the purpose of preservation is met when the defendant’s arguments are presented to the trial court at a hearing.
Facts
Dru Allard moved to dismiss his indictment, claiming a violation of his right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30. The People opposed the motion, arguing that a portion of the delay was excludable because a key witness was out of the country. Allard did not file a reply. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the defendant was entitled to a hearing because the People failed to conclusively refute the motion with unquestionable documentary proof as required by CPL 210.45 (5). After the hearing, the trial court granted Allard’s motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The People appealed, arguing that Allard’s CPL 30.30 arguments were unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to comply with the established procedure for preserving such claims, by not filing a reply to the People’s opposition.
Procedural History
Allard moved to dismiss the indictment. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The Appellate Division remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing. The Supreme Court conducted a hearing and granted the motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a defendant preserves their speedy trial arguments for appellate review, when a hearing on the motion to dismiss is granted, even if they did not file a reply addressing the People’s claimed exclusions.
Holding
1. Yes, because the defendant raised their challenges to the People’s claimed exclusions at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, thus providing the trial court with an opportunity to address them.
Court’s Reasoning
The court recognized the tension between CPL 210.45, which provides the general procedure for motions to dismiss and requires a hearing in the absence of conclusive documentary proof, and the established procedures for preserving a CPL 30.30 argument. The People argued that Allard’s failure to file a reply meant his arguments were unpreserved. However, the Court of Appeals held that such a rigid interpretation was not mandated by case law or consistent with the functional approach to preservation. The court emphasized that the purpose of preservation is to alert the trial court to the claims at a time when it can remedy any potential error.