People v. Abdullah

Decision Date05 November 2015
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramal B. ABDULLAH, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

133 A.D.3d 925
20 N.Y.S.3d 659

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ramal B. ABDULLAH, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Nov. 5, 2015.


20 N.Y.S.3d 660

Steven C. Buitron, Syracuse, for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Rita M. Basile of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, GARRY and ROSE, JJ.

ROSE, J.

133 A.D.3d 925

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.),

20 N.Y.S.3d 661

rendered November 20, 2013, upon two verdicts convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, resisting arrest and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (two counts).

In April 2012, defendant was charged by a multicount indictment with various crimes stemming from a series of encounters with police in December 2010, March 2011, April 2011 and October 2011. Defendant thereafter made multiple motions to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds and alternatively moved for, among other things, severance from the remaining charges of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance arising from his April 2011 arrest. County Court partially granted defendant's first speedy trial motion, dismissing two counts of the indictment stemming from the December 2010 and March 2011 incidents, and otherwise denied his remaining motions relevant to this appeal. A series of jury trials and resulting mistrials followed resulting in partial verdicts convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, resisting arrest and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in

133 A.D.3d 926

the third degree (two counts). Defendant was then sentenced, and he now appeals.

We cannot agree with defendant's contention that the People violated his statutory right to a speedy trial. Where, as here, a defendant is indicted on multiple charges, at least one of which is a felony, CPL 30.30(1)(a) requires the People to declare their readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, which is marked by the filing of the first accusatory instrument (see CPL 1.20[16], [17] ; People v. Cooper, 98 N.Y.2d 541, 543, 750 N.Y.S.2d 258, 779 N.E.2d 1006 [2002] ; People v. Lowman, 103 A.D.3d 976, 976–977, 959 N.Y.S.2d 568 [2013] ). To determine whether the People timely declared readiness, courts must "compute[ ] the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People's declaration of readiness, subtract[ ] any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then add[ ] to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion" (People v. Manchester, 123 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 999 N.Y.S.2d 567 [2014], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 931, 17 N.Y.S.3d 94, 38 N.E.3d 840 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Carter, 91 N.Y.2d 795, 798–799, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523, 699 N.E.2d 35 [1998] ).

Defendant was indicted on April 20, 2012 and the People declared their readiness for trial the same day. As relevant here, the indictment contained charges from two separate criminal actions, the earliest of which was commenced by the filing of a felony complaint on April 2, 2011. The People concede that they are chargeable for a prereadiness delay of 151 days between the filing of the complaint and a hearing scheduled for August 31, 2011. Defendant did not appear at that hearing, however, prompting his counsel to request an adjournment, which was granted. At the next court appearance, on September 28, 2011, defendant was present, but he again was granted, at his counsel's request, a one-week adjournment to pursue further plea negotiations. In light of the fact that the foregoing delays were the result of adjournments "granted by the court at the request of, or with the consent of, ... defendant or his counsel" (

20 N.Y.S.3d 662

CPL 30.30[4][b] ; see People v. Kopciowski, 68 N.Y.2d 615, 616–617, 505 N.Y.S.2d 52, 496 N.E.2d 211 [1986] ; People v. Manchester, 123 A.D.3d at 1286–1287, 999 N.Y.S.2d 567 ), the time period between August 31, 2011 and October 5, 2011 is not chargeable to the People.

On October 5, 2011, still unable to reach a plea agreement, defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Bryant
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 2021
  • People v. Casanova
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 13, 2017
    ...CPL 200.20(2)(b) or (c), County Court lacked the statutory authority to sever the indictments (see 60 N.Y.S.3d 508 People v. Abdullah, 133 A.D.3d 925, 928, 20 N.Y.S.3d 659 [2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 990, 38 N.Y.S.3d 101, 59 N.E.3d 1213 [2016] ).1 Nor are we persuaded by defendant's assert......
  • People v. Catalan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 21, 2022
    ...postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion" ( People v. Abdullah, 133 A.D.3d 925, 926, 20 N.Y.S.3d 659 [2015] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 990, 38 N.Y.S.3d 101, 59 N.E.3d ......
  • People v. Bryant
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 30, 2021
    ...(2) (b), County Court lacks the statutory authority to sever (see People v Bongarzone, 69 N.Y.2d 892, 895 [1987]; People v Abdullah, 133 A.D.3d 925, 928 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 990 [2016]; People v Cherry, 46 A.D.3d 1234, 1236 [2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 839 [2008]). Here, the victim's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT