People v. Griffin
Docket 2023-04712
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02670
- Docket
- 2023-04712
Appeal from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial in Supreme Court, Nassau County, challenging denial of a motion to dismiss the consolidated indictment under CPL 30.30 and other trial rulings.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Lucious Griffin’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple drug and paraphernalia offenses and his sentence. Griffin argued the indictment should be dismissed for violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights because the People’s initial certificate of compliance (COC) omitted certain discovery (including a prisoner movement log and pole camera footage). The court held the initial COC was valid because the People exercised due diligence, promptly disclosed the missing log once discovered, and the defense sought no lesser remedy than dismissal. Several other claims were deemed unpreserved for appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether the People’s initial certificate of compliance (COC) satisfied CPL 30.30 despite a later disclosure omission (prisoner movement log).
- Whether the indictment should be dismissed for violation of the statutory right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30.
- Whether claims regarding pole camera footage, a missing-witness charge, and a Fourth Amendment challenge to pole camera placement were preserved for appellate review.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the rule that a valid COC requires the prosecution to exercise due diligence and make reasonable inquiries before filing. The record showed the People provided extensive initial discovery, acted in good faith, and immediately disclosed the prisoner movement log once they realized it was omitted. Because the defense did not request lesser sanctions and the COC was therefore not illusory, dismissal under CPL 30.30 was not warranted. Several other arguments failed because they were not raised below and thus are unpreserved for appeal.
Authorities Cited
- People v Sombillo244 AD3d 873
- People v Gonzalez244 AD3d 1229
- People v Bay41 NY3d 200
- CPL 30.30
- CPL 245.50
Parties
- Appellant
- Lucious Griffin
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Howard E. Sturim
- Judge
- Lara J. Genovesi
- Attorney
- John Healy
- Attorney
- Anne T. Donnelly
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Trial court judgment date
- 2023-05-08
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider motion for leave to appeal
If the defendant seeks further review, consult counsel about applying to the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal, noting preservation issues and the appellate court’s reliance on the record of diligence.
- 2
Review trial record for preserved issues
Defense counsel should review the trial record to identify any preserved errors that might support a renewed appellate application or a collateral challenge.
- 3
Evaluate post-conviction options
Discuss potential post-conviction relief, such as a CPL 440 motion, if there are new facts or constitutional issues that were not and could not have been raised on direct appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejecting the claim that the indictment should be dismissed for a speedy-trial violation.
- Why didn't missing discovery lead to dismissal?
- The court found the prosecutors had acted with due diligence, disclosed extensive materials initially, and promptly turned over the omitted prisoner movement log once they learned it was missing, so dismissal was not required.
- Are there other issues I can still raise?
- Several issues (pole camera footage, missing-witness charge, Fourth Amendment claim) were ruled unpreserved because they were not raised in the trial court, which generally bars raising them for the first time on appeal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant remains convicted and sentenced; the People’s handling of discovery and COC filings is endorsed where they show diligence and prompt corrective disclosure.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Griffin - 2026 NY Slip Op 02670 People v Griffin 2026 NY Slip Op 02670 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Lucious Griffin, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2023-04712, (Ind. No. 70385/19) Lara J. Genovesi, J.P. Barry E. Warhit Donna-Marie E. Golia Phillip Hom, JJ. John Healy, Uniondale, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Jared A. Chester of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), rendered May 8, 2023, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree under a consolidated indictment. The defendant was sentenced under the consolidated indictment, and appeals from the judgment. The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion, among other things, to dismiss the consolidated indictment on the ground that the defendant was deprived of the statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30. The defendant asserts that the People's initial certificate of compliance (hereinafter COC) was improper because, prior to filing the COC, the People failed to disclose, inter alia, the defendant's prisoner movement log. The defendant's contention is without merit. "Absent an individualized finding of special circumstances, 'the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of [CPL 30.30] until it has filed a valid [COC]'" ( People v Sombillo , 244 AD3d 873, 874, quoting CPL 245.50[3]). "When a defendant moves pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People failed to exercise due diligence and therefore did not file a proper COC, the People bear the burden of establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC despite a belated or missing disclosure" ( People v Gonzalez , 244 AD3d 1229, 1230 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Bay , 41 NY3d 200, 213). "'[A] valid [COC] and readiness declaration will not be rendered illusory by subsequent diligent disclosures made in good faith'" ( People v Sombillo , 244 AD3d at 874, quoting People v Macaluso , 230 AD3d 1158, 1159). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the People's initial COC was proper. The record demonstrates that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by [CPL 245.20(1)]" (CPL 245.50[1]) as evidenced by the extensive, voluminous documents provided to the defendant with the initial COC and statement of readiness. The People established that their initial failure to disclose the missing materials "was inadvertent and without bad faith or a lack of due diligence" ( People v Deas , 226 AD3d 823, 826; see People v Sombillo , 244 AD3d at 874) as substantiated by the fact that the People immediately disclosed the prisoner movement log once they ascertained that it had not been initially turned over ( see People v Sombillo , 244 AD3d at 874; People v McMahon , 237 AD3d 746, 751). Notably, the defense requested no additional sanctions or accommodations based upon the delayed disclosure short of dismissal of the indictment ( see CPL 245.80; People v Macaluso , 230 AD3d at 1160). Accordingly, inasmuch as the People's initial COC was proper and the statement of trial readiness, therefore, was not illusory, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the consolidated indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the consolidated indictment based on the People's failure to file a valid COC with respect to pole camera footage is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not move to dismiss the consolidated indictment on that ground ( see People v Sombillo , 244 AD3d at 874). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have given a missing witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant's arguments on appeal were not raised before the trial court ( see People v Morris , 207 AD3d 477, 478; People v Dragani , 204 AD3d 690, 692). Moreover, the defendant's contention that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the placement of the pole camera outside of his apartment building is also unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; see generally People v Biggs , 208 AD3d 1340, 1344). GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, GOLIA and HOM, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph