People v Venornum
Annotate this CaseDecided on February 6, 2012
Supreme Court, Essex County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Darren Venornum, Defendant.
5615
Kristy L. Sprague, Esq., Essex County District Attorney, Elizabethtown, New York.
Darren Venornum, Malone, New York, defendant.
Richard B. Meyer, J.
A misdemeanor complaint dated and sworn December 21, 2011 was filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 28, 2011 by the complainant, an inmate at the Upstate Correctional Facility located in the town of Malone, Franklin County, New York. The complainant charges the defendant, a correction officer, with two counts of official misconduct (Penal Law §195.00, subds. 1 and 2) allegedly occurring at that facility on September 5, 2011 at approximately 7:30 p.m. The Clerk informed the complainant that this Court was not the proper court in which to file the misdemeanor complaint and returned the same to him. Insisting that the accusatory instrument be accepted for filing and prosecution, the complainant re-filed it with the Clerk on January 10, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the misdemeanor complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.
This Court is a "superior court" (CPL §10.10[2][b]), and "[t]he only way in which a criminal action can be commenced in a superior court is by the filing therewith by a grand jury of an indictment" (CPL §100.05). Admittedly, a superior court has "[t]rial jurisdiction of misdemeanors concurrent with that of the local criminal courts" (CPL §10.20[1][b]). However, it does not have "preliminary jurisdiction" such that "a criminal action for such offense may be commenced therein" (CPL §1.20[25]) except "by reason of and through the agency of their grand juries" (CPL §10.20[2]). A misdemeanor complaint is a "local criminal court accusatory instrument" (CPL §1.20[1], [2], [7]), and such instruments can only be filed so as to commence a criminal action in a "local criminal court" (CPL §1.20[21]; §10.10[3]; §10.30; §100.55). In addition, a court must have geographic jurisdiction, commonly referred to as "venue", over an offense (see CPL §§20.10-20.50). "The burden is on the People to prove at trial either that the county of prosecution is where the crime was committed or that a statutory exception applies" (People v. Greenberg, 89 NY2d 553, 555, 656 NYS2d 192, 678 NE2d 878 [1997]).
The complainant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over this offense and is the proper venue for prosecution because it is within the fourth judicial district (NY Constitution Article 6, §6[a]). He confuses judicial districts, which are solely territorial regions within the state, with "district courts", which are local criminal courts existing only within the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. "[T]he constitutional establishment of multicounty judicial districts . . . has no bearing, express or implied, on determining the place of trial" (People v. Taylor, 39 NY2d 649, 653, 385 NYS2d 270, 272, 350 NE2d 600, 602 [1976]). "This is not, and never has been, one of the functions of a judicial district in this State" (id.). Just because a court is located in a judicial district does not make it a "district court" within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Law. Moreover, a "local criminal court accusatory instrument may be filed with a district court of a particular county when an offense charged therein was allegedly committed in such county or that part thereof over which such court has jurisdiction" (CPL §100.55[1]). "[A]n offense is committed in' a particular county, city, town, village or other specified political subdivision or area, not only when it is in fact committed therein but also when it is, for other reasons specified in sections 20.40 and 20.50, prosecutable in the criminal courts having geographical jurisdiction over such political subdivision or area" (CPL §100.55[10]).
The Supreme Court of Essex County being a superior court and not a "district court" or [*2]"local criminal court" in which a misdemeanor complaint may be filed to commence a criminal action, and the charges asserted in the accusatory instrument filed by the complainant having allegedly occurred in Franklin County, the misdemeanor complaint dated and sworn December 21, 2011 must be and hereby is dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Because courts should abide by "the cardinal principle of judicial restraint — if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more" (PDK Laboratories Inc. v. US DEA, 362 F3d 786, 799 [Roberts, J, concurring]; see also People v. Carvajal, 6 NY3d 305, 316, 812 NYS2d 395, 402, 845 NE2d 1225, 1232 ["We are bound, of course, by principles of judicial restraint not to decide questions unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal"]), this Court will not address any defects in the accusatory instrument.
It is so ordered.
ENTER ________________________________
Richard B. Meyer, A.J.S.C.
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.
