People v. Warren
| Citation | 445 N.Y.S.2d 797,85 A.D.2d 747 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Thelbert WARREN, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1981 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and HOPKINS, DAMIANI and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 28, 1978, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
By order dated May 11, 1981, this court remitted the case to Criminal Term to hear and report on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that his rights under CPL 30.30 were violated, and held the appeal in abeyance in the interim (People v. Warren, 81 A.D.2d 872, 439 N.Y.S.2d 41). Criminal Term, has now complied, and has concluded that defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30.
Judgment reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment granted, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.
We agree with Criminal Term's finding that the entire period of February 25, 1975 to August 15, 1975 is chargeable to the People under CPL 30.30. The People contend that this period should be excluded as having been occasioned by "exceptional circumstances" (see CPL 30.30, subd. 4, par. ). The People claim that the delay was caused by a shortage of investigating officers existing at that time and a large case load in the District Attorney's office.
The record reveals that the complaining witnesses were not unavailable, but simply were not contacted by the District Attorney's investigators until July 15, 1975. There is no indication that any effort was made to contact or subpoena them prior to that date. The People have failed to make a showing of "credible, vigorous activity" as is required under circumstances such as exist in this case (People v. Washington, 43 N.Y.2d 772, 774, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 372 N.E.2d 795). While the lack of effort may well have been caused by the work load and shortage of personnel, these reasons do not constitute "exceptional circumstances" (People v. Sturgis, 77 Misc.2d 766, 354 N.Y.S.2d 968, affd. 46 A.D.2d 741, 362 N.Y.S.2d 438; cf. People v. Brothers, 50 N.Y.2d 413, 429 N.Y.S.2d 558, 407 N.E.2d 405). A contrary holding would thwart the purpose of CPL 30.30, which "is to require the prosecution to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rambally
...and shortage of personnel, these reasons do not constitute ‘exceptional circumstances (citations omitted)." People v. Warren , 85 AD2d 747, 445 N.Y.S.2d 797 (2nd Dept. 1981) ; see also: cf. People v. Meyers , 114 AD2d 861, 494 N.Y.S.2d 897 (2nd Dept. 1985) ; People v. Miller , 113 AD3d 885,......
-
People v. Salazar
...and June 8, 1998, the date of the filing of the motion. (See People v. Khan, 146 A.D.2d 806, 537 N.Y.S.2d 284, supra; People v. Warren, 85 A.D.2d 747, 445 N.Y.S.2d 797). The subsequent efforts in July 1998 were made to fashion a response to defendant's motion to The defendant has not forfei......
-
People v. Rambally
...load and shortage of personnel, these reasons do not constitute 'exceptional circumstances (citations omitted)." People v. Warren, 85 AD2d 747, 445 N.Y.S.2d 797 (2nd Dept. 1981); see also: cf. People v. Meyers, 114 AD2d 861, 494 N.Y.S.2d 897 (2nd Dept. 1985); People v. Miller, 113 AD3d 885,......
-
People v. Green
...rejected by this court as an exceptional circumstance meriting exclusion of periods of delay under CPL 30.30(4)(g) ( People v. Warren, 85 A.D.2d 747, 445 N.E.2d 797). The hearing court held that the delay in perfecting the appeal was not reasonable, and dismissed the The effect of the CPL 4......