People v. Walker
Docket 154 KA 21-00656
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 02523
- Docket
- 154 KA 21-00656
Appeal from a judgment convicting defendant of driving while ability impaired, after remittal to determine a motion to dismiss on statutory speedy-trial grounds.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Terrell L. Walker's conviction for driving while ability impaired. The court had previously reserved decision and remitted the case to Monroe County Court to resolve whether the People were required to obtain DMV refusal-hearing transcripts or recordings under the statutory discovery and whether any failure violated defendant's speedy-trial rights. On remand the court denied the motion to dismiss, and this court upheld that ruling, concluding the DMV materials were not in the prosecution's possession or deemed to be in possession and thus were not required to be obtained or listed in the certificate of compliance.
Issues Decided
- Whether the People were required under CPL 245.20(2) to exercise due diligence to obtain DMV refusal-hearing transcripts or recordings that they did not possess.
- Whether the People's failure to provide or obtain those DMV materials rendered their certificate of compliance improper and violated defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial.
Court's Reasoning
The court found the DMV transcripts or recordings were not in the prosecution's possession, custody, or control and were not items deemed to be in the prosecution's possession under CPL 245.20(2). Because those materials were not part of the discovery the People were required to provide or to certify, the People were not obligated to make diligent efforts to obtain them. Therefore the certificate of compliance and the People’s trial readiness statement were not rendered improper, and there was no statutory speedy-trial violation on that basis.
Authorities Cited
- CPL 245.20
- CPL 245.50
- CPL 30.30
- People v Radford237 AD3d 1511 (4th Dept 2025)
Parties
- Appellant
- Terrell L. Walker
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Douglas A. Randall
- Attorney
- Julie Cianca, Public Defender (James Eckert of counsel)
- Attorney
- Brian P. Green, District Attorney (Lisa Gray of counsel)
Key Dates
- Decision date (Appellate Division)
- 2026-04-24
- Original judgment date (Monroe County Court)
- 2021-04-26
- Prior remittal/order date
- 2024-06-14
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals
If the defendant wishes to pursue further review, counsel should evaluate and, if appropriate, timely file an application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
- 2
Review sentencing and collateral options
Defense counsel should confirm the judgment and sentencing status and consider any post-conviction or collateral remedies that may still be available.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the conviction and held the prosecution did not have to obtain DMV refusal-hearing transcripts or recordings it did not possess, so there was no statutory speedy-trial violation on that basis.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Terrell L. Walker is affected because his conviction and the denial of his speedy-trial dismissal motion were affirmed.
- What happens next for the defendant?
- Because the appellate court affirmed the conviction, the defendant may consider seeking further review by the Court of Appeals if a proper application is available and timely.
- Why didn't the court require the prosecution to get the DMV materials?
- The court found those materials were not in the prosecution's possession or deemed to be in its possession under CPL 245.20, so the prosecution had no statutory duty to obtain them for discovery.
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 Walker - 2026 NY Slip Op 02523 People v Walker 2026 NY Slip Op 02523 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v TERRELL L. WALKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 154 KA 21-00656 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Smith, Greenwood, And Nowak, JJ. JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered April 26, 2021. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered June 14, 2024, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings (228 AD3d 1318 [4th Dept 2024]). The proceedings were held and completed. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]). We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to determine defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by ruling on the outstanding issues whether the People were required, pursuant to CPL 245.20 (2), to exercise due diligence to obtain transcripts or recordings from the refusal hearing of the Department of Motor Vehicles that were not in their possession and, if so, whether the People made reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory directives and made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, as well as whether defendant's motion to dismiss was untimely ( People v Walker , 228 AD3d 1318, 1320 [4th Dept 2024]). Upon remittal, the court denied the motion. We affirm. We reject defendant's contention on resubmission that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Here, the transcripts or recordings in question were not "in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control" (CPL 245.20 [1]; see Walker , 228 AD3d at 1320) and did not qualify as "items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency" that must be "deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution" (CPL 245.20 [2]). Thus, they were not part of the "discovery required by [CPL 245.20 (1)]" to be provided by the People as a predicate for filing a proper certificate of compliance (COC) (CPL 245.50 [1]), and the People were not required to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence" of the transcripts or recordings and cause them to be made available for discovery (CPL 245.20 [2]). Inasmuch as the People's failure to provide the transcripts or recordings at the time they served and filed their COC or to exercise due diligence to obtain them did not render the COC improper, the People's statement of trial readiness pursuant to CPL 30.30 was not illusory, and defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated on that ground ( see People v Radford , 237 AD3d 1511, 1512 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1048 [2025]; People v Walker , 232 AD3d 1214, 1217 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1082 [2025]). In light of our determination, we do not reach defendant's remaining contentions. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn