People v. Meierdiercks
| Decision Date | 03 June 1986 |
| Citation | 496 N.E.2d 210,505 N.Y.S.2d 51,68 N.Y.2d 613 |
| Parties | , 496 N.E.2d 210 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Karen MEIERDIERCKS, Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James BOYD, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kasseem HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The orders of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 769, 490 N.Y.S.2d 28 should be affirmed.
In the three appeals before us, defendants sought dismissal of indictments pursuant to CPL 30.30, alleging lengthy preindictment delays attributable in material part to adjournments of preliminary hearings. In the first case, People v. Meierdiercks, the adjournment was ordered sua sponte by the local criminal court, after defense counsel had pointed out that the complaint did not accurately describe the purportedly stolen check. No motion was made by defendant, and the adjournment was neither requested nor consented to by her or her counsel. By contrast, in People v. Boyd and People v. Harris, defendants requested or consented to adjournments of preliminary hearings, thus expressly waiving any objection to those delays (CPL 30.30 [4] [b] ). While defendants in all three cases contend that the periods of delay should be included because they did not prevent the People from seeking indictments, as we recognized in People v. Worley 66 N.Y.2d 523, 527, 498 N.Y.S.2d 116, 488 N.E.2d 1228 the controlling consideration is not whether defendants' actions prevented the People from obtaining accusatory instruments sufficient for trial, but whether defendants waived the delay in the proceedings by requesting or consenting to the adjournments. Thus, in Meierdiercks, where there was no waiver by defendant, the sua sponte adjournment period was properly charged against the People and the indictment dismissed, and in People v. Boyd and People v. Harris, where there were express waivers, the delay periods were correctly excluded and defendants' motions to dismiss properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Walton
...423, 478 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2d Dept., 1984] ), that appellate court now seems to have acknowledged that People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 614-15, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 496 N.E.2d 210 [1986] requires that the defendant's consent to an adjournment must be explicit, not implicit, for the adjournmen......
-
People v. White
...requested by defendant (see, People v. Kopciowski, 68 N.Y.2d 615, 505 N.Y.S.2d 52, 496 N.E.2d 211; People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 496 N.E.2d 210). Examination of the record indicates that only 47 days were chargeable to the Defendant's Rosario (see, People v. Rosari......
-
People v. Amendolara
...is desirable" (People v. Worley, supra 66 N.Y.2d at p. 527, 498 N.Y.S.2d 116, 488 N.E.2d 1228; cf. People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 496 N.E.2d 210 [1986] ). The defendant, by continuing to litigate the motions and failing to object to the adjournments, impliedly conse......
-
People v. Pickens
...period was excludable and not properly chargeable to them since it was made at defendant's request (see, People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 496 N.E.2d 210; People v. Fenick, 182 A.D.2d 895, 582 N.Y.S.2d 38). Upon such finding and in light of the fact that defendant was ......