People v Rodriguez
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 31, 2006
Supreme Court, Queens County
The People of the State of New York
against
Mario Rodriguez, a/k/a LAUREANO HERNAN LASSO-GARCIA, Defendant.
N14030/90
Mario Rodriguez, Pro Se For the Motion
Hon. Richard A. Brown, D.A.
by Alix Fredrika Kucker, Esq. Opposed
Sheri S. Roman, J.
Defendant moves by notice of motion dated March 30, 2006, for an order dismissing the above-captioned indictments pursuant to C.P.L. Section 210.20(g) on the ground that the People have denied the defendant his right to a speedy trial in violation of C.P.L. Section 30.30(1)(a).
Indictment Number N14030/90 was filed in Queens County on December 6, 1990 and charges defendant with Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree. Indictment Number N14308/90 was filed on January 25, 1991 and charges defendant with one count of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.
After arraignment, the two indictments were assigned for all purposes to Part J-11 before Judge LeVine. On April 10, 1991, while the indictments were pending and prior to trial, defendant failed to appear in court for his scheduled appearance. An arrest warrant on each indictment was immediately issued by Judge LeVine. As of this date, defendant has not been returned on the warrants.
On June 28, 2000, defendant was arrested by the United States Marshals Service and charged with the federal criminal offenses of Possession and Distribution of Cocaine, and Conspiracy to Bribe a Public Official. Defendant pled guilty to each offense and on March 22, 2002 defendant was sentenced to serve a total of 97 months imprisonment and four years post release supervision. Defendant has been serving his sentence at Allenwood Prison in Pennsylvania.
In October 2003, pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Detainers(IAD), the defendant requested that the District Attorney extradite him to Queens County to stand trial or otherwise dispose of the two open indictments. The District Attorney did not respond to that request.
In October, 2004, defendant moved before Judge LeVine, under the IAD and C.P.L. Section 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the Queens County indictments on the ground that he had previously notified both the Queens District Attorney and the Central Warrant Unit that he was incarcerated in federal custody and that the District Attorney failed to act within six months on his request for a disposition of the outstanding charges. Defendant contended in his motion that his whereabouts at Allenwood were known to the District Attorney and the New York State Central Warrant Unit based upon his personal notification to the Queens County District Attorney in October, 2003 and based upon notices sent by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to the New York Central Warrant Unit. In those notices dated May 14, 2002 and June 11, 2002 the Federal Bureau of Prisons requested to be advised by the Central Warrant Unit whether the Warrant unit wished to lodge a detainer.
The People opposed the motion to dismiss stating that the defendant's notification and request for final disposition sent [*2]to the District Attorney's Office failed to strictly comply with the statutory requirements of the IAD and also based upon the People's contention that there was a question as to whether the notices from the Federal Bureau of Prisons were actually received by the Warrant Unit of the New York Police Department.
Judge Levine held, by decision and order dated February 9, 2005, that relief was not available to the defendant under the IAD because defendant had failed to strictly comply with the notification provisions of the IAD. However, Judge LeVine also held that relief was available to the defendant pursuant to the speedy trial provisions of the C.P.L. on the ground that the period of time a defendant is detained in another jurisdiction would not be excluded from speedy trial time if the District Attorney was aware of such detention and was not diligent in obtaining his presence for trial. See C.P.L. Section 30.30(4); People v. Mapp, 308 AD2d 463 (2d Dept.2003); People v. Knight, 163 AD2d 583 (2d Dept. 1990).
Judge LeVine stated that defendant had successfully raised a question of fact in his motion papers as to the People's knowledge of defendant's incarceration and whether despite knowing of his whereabouts, the People failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain his presence for trial. Judge LeVine stated in his order:
"Defendant shall be produced with all reasonable speed for a hearing with respect to the People's actual or imputed knowledge of his federal incarceration."
As of this date, the People have made no effort to produce the defendant for a hearing in accordance with Judge LeVine's decision.
In the within motion, defendant again moves to dismiss the pending Queens County indictments on the ground that more than 13 months have elapsed since Judge LeVine's order, and the District Attorney has failed to make any effort to have him produced for a hearing on the motion.
As Judge LeVine has recently retired from the bench, the motion was referred to this court for determination.
The People have submitted an affirmation in response to the instant motion stating, "Notwithstanding Judge LeVine's decision dated February 9, 2005, directing the People to produce defendant before the court, the People declined to extradite the defendant. With between 70,000 and 100,000 open felony warrants in the City of New York, alone, the People must carefully analyze and choose which fugitives and cases merit extradition."
The Assistant District Attorney states that because the pending indictments against the defendant are over 15 years old, and since the defendant is serving 97 months incarceration to be followed by 4 years supervised release, they will concede the [*3]motion with regard to the time limitations set forth in C.P.L. Section 30.30(4)(e).
Therefore, as the People concede that they were aware of defendant's federal incarceration and failed for over two years to make any effort to produce him for trial or disposition, and then failed for an additional fifteen months to produce him for the hearing as ordered by Judge LeVine, this court finds, and the People concede, that the People have failed to comply with defendant's right to a speedy trial in accordance with C.P.L. Section 30.30(1)(a).
Accordingly, Indictments N14030/90 and N14308/90 shall be dismissed and the outstanding bench warrants against defendant dated April 10, 1991 shall be vacated.
Order entered accordingly.
The clerk of the court is directed to forward a copy of this decision and order to the District Attorney and to the defendant.
______________________________
Sheri S. Roman, J.S.C.
Dated:May 31, 2006 _____________________
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
