People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men
| Decision Date | 04 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | C--71 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Marion FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, BROOKLYN HOUSE OF DETENTION FOR MEN, Respondent. The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Joseph EDWARDS, etc., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, RIKERS ISLAND ADULT REMAND SHELTER, etc., Respondent. The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Earl ROBERTS, etc., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, RIKERS ISLAND ADULT REMAND SHELTER, etc., Respondent. The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Robert HERMANN, on Behalf of James Abney, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, BROOKLYN HOUSE OF DETENTION FOR MEN, etc., Respondent. The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Robert HERMANN, on Behalf of Barbara Ann Boone, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, NEW YORK CITY CORRECTION INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before RABIN, P.J., and HOPKINS, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and LATHAM, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In each of these five habeas corpus proceedings, the writ is dismissed, without costs.
The relators alleged that they have been incarcerated for more than 90 days; that they are charged with one or more felonies; that they are unable to give bail; that the People are not ready to try their cases; and, therefore, that the relators are entitled to be released upon their own recognizance pending trial pursuant to CPL 30.20, 30.30.
In opposing the proceedings, the People assert that in each of these cases the prosecution was ready for trial within 90 days after the applicable commitment date; that each case is now in a trial part of the court awaiting trial; and that the cases have not been tried as yet only because of calendar congestion and the lack of sufficient trial facilities in Kings County.
CPL 30.20 provides that after a criminal action is commenced, the defendant is entitled to a speedy trial. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of CPL 30.30 provides, in relevant part, that where a defendant has been committed to custody in a criminal action, he must be released on bail or on his own recognizance, upon such conditions as may be just, if the People are not ready for trial within 90 days after the commencement of his commitment where he is accused of a felony. Paragraph (g) of subdivision 4 of CPL 30.30 provides that in computing the time period within which the People must be ready for trial, there must be excluded periods of delay occasioned by 'exceptional circumstances'.
The relators contend that it is common knowledge that calendar congestion in the Supreme Court in Kings County is of serious proportions; that as of December 1, 1972 there were 519 defendants who had been in jail for more than 90 days after assignment to a trial part and 1,973 defendants who had been in jail for six months or more awaiting trial; that the number of defendants in jail awaiting trial in the Supreme Court in Kings County increased 75% Between November, 1971 and November, 1972; that the volume of active pending defendants grew from 2,364 in October, 1971 to 5,260 in November, 1972; and that the number of cases marked ready for trial in each Legal Aid Society part in the Supreme Court in Kings County exceeds 300. The relators argue that the existence of this problem of calendar congestion must have been apparent to the Legislature when it enacted section 30.30; that it cannot be considered an 'exceptional circumstance' to excuse delay in trial; and that if court congestion is regarded as such a circumstance, the statute is a cruel hoax.
The People contend, however, that paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of CPL 30.30 merely requires that the People be ready for trial within a certain time limit; that the People were ready within that time; that there has been no delay by the prosecution in processing these cases; and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tolkow
...statutory period and were prevented from proceeding to trial by factors rendering it physically impossible. (People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, 41 A.D.2d 531, 339 N.Y.S.2d 340; see also People v. Henderson, 72 Misc.2d 12, 338 N.Y.S.2d 522) The question of court congestion remains an open is......
-
People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men
...Appellate Division, Second Department, entered January 4, 1973, dismissing their several petitions for writs of habeas corpus, 41 A.D.2d 531, 339 N.Y.S.2d 340. Each of the appellants is a pretrial detainee as a result of an indictment handed up by the Kings County Grand Jury. Each has been ......
-
People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, C--71
...our orders and remitted the matters to us for further action in accordance with its opinion (People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, 41 A.D.2d 531, 339 N.Y.S.2d 340, mod. 31 N.Y.2d 498, 341 N.Y.S.2d 604, 294 N.E.2d 199 Upon the remand, we now, in turn, remand......
-
People ex rel. Bennett v. Malcolm
...writ is dismissed as to relators James Molina and Felix Rodriguez, without costs (see People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden (App.Div., 339 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1973)). SAMUEL RABIN, P.J., and HOPKINS, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and LATHAM, JJ., ...