People v. Correa
| Decision Date | 04 April 1991 |
| Parties | , 572 N.E.2d 42 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Gregory CORREA, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals 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.
The order of the Appellate Division, 161 A.D.2d 391, 555 N.Y.S.2d 715, should be affirmed.
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. Accordingly, the delay between indictment and arraignment on the indictment was properly charged to the People.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Luperon
...reasonable time to arraign" (but see, People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d, at 213, 590 N.Y.S.2d 9, 604 N.E.2d 71, supra; People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42) and that a "substantial amount" of the time before indictment might be excludable if, in fact, defendant had req......
-
People v. Davis
...we note that it is incorrect (see, People v. Palacios, 78 N.Y.2d 925, 573 N.Y.S.2d 477, 577 N.E.2d 1069; People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42). The People conceded that they were "chargeable" with the 41 days from October 7, 1987, to November 17, 1987. The People......
-
People v. Lisene
...until the defendant's arraignment on the indictment on February 22, 2012, were chargeable to the People (see People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 931, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42 ). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the 28 days from February 22, 2012, to March 21, 2012, were ......
-
People v. Davis
...17, 1987, including the period from the date of the filing of the indictment to the date of arraignment (see, People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42). The following seven-day period is excludable as it was the result of an adjournment at the defendant's request (CP......