People v. Adams

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBREITEL
Citation38 N.Y.2d 605,381 N.Y.S.2d 847,345 N.E.2d 318
Decision Date24 February 1976
Parties, 345 N.E.2d 318 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Norman ADAMS, Appellant.

Page 847

381 N.Y.S.2d 847
38 N.Y.2d 605, 345 N.E.2d 318
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Norman ADAMS, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Feb. 24, 1976.

Eugene L. Shapiro and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Henry J. Steinglass and Peter L. Zimroth, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was a denial of his right to a speedy trial.

On April 15, 1968, defendant was arrested and arraigned on charges of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law, § 140.20) and possession of burglar's tools (Penal Law, § 140.35), crimes allegedly committed earlier that day. He was indicted on the charges, as well as for grand larceny, on February 26, 1970. Although defendant had been at liberty for most of the period preceding indictment, thereafter he was incarcerated. His motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution had failed to find an indictment (former Code Crim.Pro., § 667) was denied as moot on May 12, 1970.

In January of 1971, defendant served a Pro se motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute upon the District Attorney, premised upon an alleged denial of a speedy trial. Nothing in the record indicates that the motion was docketed with the court for judicial disposition. Thereafter, on April 12, 1972, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of the instant indictment and another charging him with possession of a weapon. At the plea and sentencing proceedings, no mention of the Pro se motion for dismissal was made.

In the Appellate Division, defendant, for the first time, asserted his alleged deprivation but the judgment was affirmed, with two Justices dissenting and being of the view that the case should be remitted for a hearing on the reasonableness of the delay.

Page 848

The right to a speedy trial may be waived but the waiver must be both knowingly and voluntarily made (People v. White, 32 N.Y.2d 393, 399, 345 N.Y.S.2d 513, 518, 298 N.E.2d 659, 663). It can hardly be said that defendant, in light of his own motion to dismiss, was unaware of his right and, not having raised the issue in the court of first instance, there is no error to be reviewed.

BREITEL, C.J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • People v. Gross, 2016–13182
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 23, 2019
    ...356 N.Y.S.2d 855, 313 N.E.2d 336 ; see also People v. Winograd , 68 N.Y.2d 383, 390, 509 N.Y.S.2d 512, 502 N.E.2d 189 ; People v. Sher , 38 N.Y.2d at 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 843, 345 N.E.2d 314 ). It is the People's burden to demonstrate compliance with the statutory procedures, even absent any e......
  • Barber v. Scully, No. 506
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 4, 1984
    ...841 [397 N.Y.S.2d 380, 366 N.E.2d 80]; People v. Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011 [384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920]; People v. Adams, 38 NY2d 605 [381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d It is apparent from the record that the trial court was solicitous of Barber's rights. For example, the court excluded evidence ......
  • People v. Lawrence
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 1984
    ...to follow the statutory procedure results in a waiver of the claim (People v. Key, supra; People v. De Rosa, supra; People v. Adams, 38 N.Y.2d 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d 318; see, also, People v. Selby, 53 A.D.2d 878, 385 N.Y.S.2d 335, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 791, 402 N.Y.S.2d 392, 373 N.E.2......
  • People v. Rivera
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 5, 1979
    ...is no Page 975 violation of due process because of a delay exceeding six months (People v. Adams, 46 A.D.2d 749, 360 N.Y.S.2d 669 affd. 38 N.Y.2d 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d 318). Even where there are claims of prejudice of a specific nature, the court must first inquire into the reas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • People v. Gross, 2016–13182
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 23, 2019
    ...356 N.Y.S.2d 855, 313 N.E.2d 336 ; see also People v. Winograd , 68 N.Y.2d 383, 390, 509 N.Y.S.2d 512, 502 N.E.2d 189 ; People v. Sher , 38 N.Y.2d at 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 843, 345 N.E.2d 314 ). It is the People's burden to demonstrate compliance with the statutory procedures, even absent any e......
  • Barber v. Scully, No. 506
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 4, 1984
    ...841 [397 N.Y.S.2d 380, 366 N.E.2d 80]; People v. Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011 [384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920]; People v. Adams, 38 NY2d 605 [381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d It is apparent from the record that the trial court was solicitous of Barber's rights. For example, the court excluded evidence ......
  • People v. Lawrence
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 1984
    ...to follow the statutory procedure results in a waiver of the claim (People v. Key, supra; People v. De Rosa, supra; People v. Adams, 38 N.Y.2d 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d 318; see, also, People v. Selby, 53 A.D.2d 878, 385 N.Y.S.2d 335, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 791, 402 N.Y.S.2d 392, 373 N.E.2......
  • People v. Rivera
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 5, 1979
    ...is no Page 975 violation of due process because of a delay exceeding six months (People v. Adams, 46 A.D.2d 749, 360 N.Y.S.2d 669 affd. 38 N.Y.2d 605, 381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 345 N.E.2d 318). Even where there are claims of prejudice of a specific nature, the court must first inquire into the reas......
  • 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