People v Arroyo

[*1] People v Arroyo 2023 NY Slip Op 50612(U) Decided on June 23, 2023 City Court Of Rochester, Monroe County Crimi Jr., J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 23, 2023
City Court of Rochester, Monroe County

The People of the State of New York,

against

William Arroyo, Defendant.



CR-02905-23


For the People:
Caroline Rodriguez, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Monroe County District Attorney's Office
47 S. Fitzhugh St.
Rochester, NY 14614

For the Defendant:
Lindsay Hartley, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
Monroe County Defender's Office
10 N. Fitzhugh St.
Rochester, NY 14614 Charles F. Crimi Jr., J.

Defendant, William Arroyo, is charged by felony complaint with burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), criminal mischief in the second degree (Penal Law § 145.10) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Defendant was previously convicted of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), a class D felony, attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25), a class D felony, burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), a class D felony, and burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), a class D felony.

Defendant moves this Court for an order releasing him on his own recognizance or under non-monetary conditions. In support, defendant argues this Court can release him because he is [*2]charged with nonqualifying offenses pursuant to CPL § 530.10(1)(a). Defendant relies on a declaratory judgment of the supreme court (Cariola, J.) "that CPL § 530.20(2)(a) shall only apply to qualifying offenses as enumerated in CPL §§ 530.20(1)(b) and 510.10(4)" as persuasive authority that he is entitled to an order of release. (People ex. rel. Bradley v. Baxter, 2023 NY Slip Op 23145 [Sup Ct Monroe Co 2023]).

The argument appears to rest on the premise that when the Legislature amended the bail statute to create the qualifying/nonqualifying release structure it inadvertently failed to address the circumstance where a defendant, although a double predicate felon, is charged with a nonqualifying offense, which in the absence of the prior felony convictions would require release from custody. However, this premise is not supported by the Legislative history of CPL § 530.20(2)(a).

CPL § 530.20 was first enacted by the Legislature in 1979 and remained unchanged until January 1, 2020. (L.1979, c.218, § 1.) Under 1979 enactment, CPL § 530.20(2)(a) provided when the defendant is charged by felony complaint, with a felony, a local court may not order recognizance or bail when it appears thatthe defendant has two previous felony convictions. Id. (emphasis added).

As said, effective on January 1, 2020, CPL § 530.20(1) was amended to create the qualifying/nonqualifying offense release structure and to add rules for securing orders issued by local criminal courts. As part of the 2020 amendments, the Legislature also amended CPL § 530.20(2)(a). That amendment deleted the "it appears that" language and replaced it with "may not." (L.2019, c.59, pt.JJJ, eff. Jan. 1, 2020). Thus, the Legislative History of the January 1, 2020 amendment to CPL § 530.20(2) shows that the Legislature did review this predicate felon provision and made the changes it thought appropriate, namely to make clear that double predicate felon defendants are not eligible to be released by local criminal courts. (See NY Bill Jacket, 2019 S.B. 1509, Ch. 59). In 2022 and 2023, the Legislature again amended CPL § 530.20, but made no changes to subdivision 2. L.2022, c.56, pt. (UU, subpt. C, §§ 3, 4, eff. May 9, 2022), (L.2023, c.56, pt. VV, subpt. A, § 6, eff. June 2, 2023).

"When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, a court's primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature." (Samiento v. World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70, 77-78 [2008]). The clearest indication of legislative intent is the statutory text and "[c]ourts must construe clear and unambiguous statutes as enacted." (Matter of Raynor v. Landmark Chrysler, 18 NY3d 48 [2011]), (Doorley v. DeMarco, 106 AD3d 27 [4th Dept. 2013]). "Where a statute describes the particular situations in which it is to apply and no qualifying exception is added, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Matter of Alonzo M. v New York City Dept. of Probation, 72 NY2d 662, 665 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the statutory text of CPL § 530.20(2)(a) is clear.[FN1] When a defendant is charged [*3]with a felony, a local court may not order recognizance or bail when the defendant has two previous felony convictions. The Legislative History as evidenced by the 2020 amendment to CPL § 530.20(2)(a), and lack of change to that provision in the 2022 and 2023 amendments, support the conclusion that the Legislature intended to prohibit local criminal courts from ordering recognizance or bail when a defendant, regardless of the felony with which he or she is charged, has two or more felony convictions.

Based upon such, defendant's motion for an order releasing him on his own recognizance or under non-monetary conditions is hereby denied.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

DATED: June 23, 2023
Hon. Charles F. Crimi, Jr.
Rochester City Court Judge Footnotes

Footnote 1:The practice commentaries for CPL § 510.10 recognize the limitations on a local criminal court's generaldiscretion to order recognizance, bail, or commitment set forth in CPL § 530.20. Likewise, the practice commentaries for CPL § 530.20 indicate subdivisions one (e.g. qualifying and nonqualifying offenses) and two should be considered separately. It also states a local criminal court lacks the authority to release on recognizance or bail where defendant is charged with a felony and the defendant has two prior felony convictions.