People v. Alston

Decision Date02 March 1993
Citation191 A.D.2d 176,594 N.Y.S.2d 37
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Paul ALSTON, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Before CARRO, J.P., and MILONAS, ROSENBERGER, ROSS and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered March 2, 1990, which dismissed the indictment against defendant, sua sponte, on the ground that the People failed to show why the indictment should not be vacated for violation of defendant's right to a speedy trial, unanimously affirmed.

On January 29, 1986, an indictment was filed charging defendant with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant was freed on bail and failed to appear for arraignment on February 14, 1986. Subsequently, on February 21, a bench warrant was issued.

In January 1990, the People learned that defendant had been incarcerated in Attica Correctional Facility since October 27, 1989. He had been arrested in Utica, New York on January 9, 1989 for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Defendant was produced in court on February 15, 1990, at which time it is not disputed that Supreme Court requested an updated NYSIID report in order to determine if CPL 30.30 speedy trial requirements might constitute a bar to prosecution of the action. On March 2, 1990, the court noted that the Assistant District Attorney had not furnished the requested report and confirmed with defendant that he had been incarcerated since January, 1989 under his own name. Expressing some impatience with the lack of cooperation on the part of the prosecution, the court dismissed the indictment on the ground that defendant had been deprived of the right to a speedy trial. The court indicated a willingness to hear reargument on the point and stayed its order for 30 days to permit the People to bring an appropriate motion. No motion was made and, on April 2, 1990, the People filed a notice of appeal.

The People's argument for reversal of the order of dismissal is founded on the requirements of CPL 210.45(1), which provides that a motion to dismiss an indictment "must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people." They contend that the statutory procedural requirements should be strictly construed because "speedy trial questions are often complex, involving multiple calculations and requiring a keen degree of exactitude and rigorous scrutiny of the record."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Santana
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 2, 1993
  • People v. Doe
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • February 20, 2015
    ...210.45 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see People v. Littles, 188 A.D.2d 255, 256 [2002], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 842 [1993] ). People v. Alston, 191 A.D.2d 176 (1993), now cited by defendant as authority for the court's sua sponte dismissal order, is distinguishable on several grounds, most not......
  • People v. Cook
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 4, 1993
    ...dereliction cannot, however, be overcome by raising on appeal what they neglected to argue before the trial court. In People v. Alston, 191 A.D.2d 176, 594 N.Y.S.2d 37, this court recently decided an issue identical to the one before us now, finding the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the......

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