BILL NUMBER:S4469

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to revocation of orders
of recognizance

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her
Advisory Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure.

This measure would amend the Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") to
authorize a court to review an order of recognizance issued pursuant
to section 180.80 when the defendant subsequently fails to appear in
court as required. It also provides that a new section 180.80 period
apply if the court revokes the order of recognizance and commits the
defendant to the custody of the sheriff.

CPL 180.80 currently provides that a court must release a defendant
"on his own recognizance" where the defendant has been held in
custody on a felony complaint for more than 120 hours without a
disposition of the felony complaint or commencement of a felony
hearing (the period is extended to 144 hours where a Saturday, Sunday
or legal holiday occurs during the custodial period). However, when a
defendant released pursuant to CPL 180.80 fails to appear in court at
a subsequent time, courts customarily issue a bench warrant to compel
              

a defendant's appearance. When the defendant is ultimately returned
to court, a new securing order is then issued. In many cases, courts
will then fix a new CPL 180.80 period, giving the prosecution
additional time to dispose of the felony complaint by plea or
indictment, or else commence a preliminary hearing.

While this approach is practical, it is not expressly authorized by
any provision in the Criminal Procedure Law. In the absence of any
express authorization, many courts adopt the procedures used to
revoke orders of recognizance under CPL 530.60. That section, however
provides that "whenever in the course of a criminal action or
proceeding, a defendant is at liberty as a result of an order of
recognizance or bail issued pursuant to this article, and the court
considers it necessary to review such order, it may, and by a bench
warrant if necessary, require the defendant to appear before the
court. . . " (emphasis added). Orders of recognizance issued pursuant
to Article 180, however, do not come within the ambit of Article 530.

Additionally, when a defendant is ultimately returned to court and a new
securing order is issued, it is unclear whether the court is required
to issue a new release order if the prosecution again does not timely
dispose of the felony complaint or commence a preliminary hearing.
Arguably, by failing to return to court as required, a defendant has
waived any right to the protection of CPL 180.80. However, the
underlying purpose of CPL 180.80 is to insure that a person is not
unreasonably held in custody on the basis of a hearsay felony
complaint. When a person is initially released from custody because
the People were unable to secure an indictment or commence a
preliminary hearing in a timely manner, any significant additional


delay suggests that the People may be unable to present competent
evidence that the defendant has committed an offense.

We believe that it is appropriate to limit the People to an additional
120 hours (144 hours if defendant is held over a Saturday, Sunday or
legal holiday) to either dispose of the felony complaint or commence
a preliminary healing. However, in order to reduce the risk that the
People will not learn that a defendant has been picked up on a warrant
or is otherwise in custody on another matter, this measure provides
for the new period to commence from the time the court revokes the
order of recognizance and commits the defendant to the custody of the
sheriff.

This measure, which would have no meaningful fiscal impact on the
State, would take effect 30 days after it shall have become law.

2011 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None. New proposal.