77 N.Y.2d 930, People v. Correa
|Citation:||77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601|
|Party Name:||People v. Correa|
|Case Date:||April 04, 1991|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Mark Dwyer, New York City, and Mary C. Farrington, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Pamela Peters and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for respondent. [569 N.Y.S.2d 602] OPINION OF THE COURT
Delays between indictment and the arraignment, like other court congestion, do not prevent the People from being ready for trial. Such delays are, therefore, not excludable under CPL 30.30 (see, People v. Brothers, 50 N.Y.2d 413, 417, 429 N.Y.S.2d 558, 407 N.E.2d 405; see also, People v. Toro, 151 A.D.2d 142, 546 N.Y.S.2d 842; lv. dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 818, 552 N.Y.S.2d 568, 551 N.E.2d 1246; accord, People v. Rhee, 111 A.D.2d 655, 490 N.Y.S.2d 215; People v. O'Neal, 99 A.D.2d 844, 472 N.Y.S.2d 449).
The People's contention that they are legally blocked from announcing their readiness for trial prior to arraignment because defendant might not yet be represented by counsel is unavailing. CPL 30.30(4)(f) expressly exempts periods during which defendant is without counsel.
Similarly unpersuasive is the People's alternative contention that it would be impractical to require them to prepare for trial prior to arraignment because the defendant could plead guilty at the arraignment. That defendant might plead guilty then or at any other time before trial should not excuse the prosecutor from taking the necessary steps to be ready for trial within the prescribed period...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP